PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between parameters measured on dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in primary invasive breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was a retrospective review of medical records and therefore approved by the institutional review board without the requirement for informed consent. Patients with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer from January 2005 through December 2009 who underwent both DCE MR imaging and FDG PET/CT before treatment initiation were retrospectively identified. Fractional volumes were measured for ranges of signal enhancement ratio (SER) values from DCE MR imaging data and compared with maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) from FDG PET/CT data. Linear regression analysis was performed to clarify the relationship between SER and SUVmax, adjusting for tumor size, pathologic grade, and receptor status. RESULTS: Analyzed were 117 invasive breast cancers in 117 patients. Overall, a higher percentage of high washout kinetics was positively associated with SUVmax (1.57% increase in SUVmax per 1% increase in high washout; P = .020), and a higher percentage of low plateau kinetics was negatively associated with SUVmax (1.19% decrease in SUVmax per 1% increase in low plateau; P = .003). These relationships were strongest among triple-negative (TN) tumors (4.34% increase in SUVmax per 1% increase in high washout and 2.65% decrease in SUVmax per 1% increase in low plateau; P = .018 and .004, respectively). CONCLUSION: In invasive breast carcinoma, there is a positive relationship between the percentage of high washout and SUVmax and a negative relationship between the percentage of low plateau and SUVmax. These results are stronger in TN tumors. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130058/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between parameters measured on dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in primary invasive breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was a retrospective review of medical records and therefore approved by the institutional review board without the requirement for informed consent. Patients with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer from January 2005 through December 2009 who underwent both DCE MR imaging and FDG PET/CT before treatment initiation were retrospectively identified. Fractional volumes were measured for ranges of signal enhancement ratio (SER) values from DCE MR imaging data and compared with maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) from FDG PET/CT data. Linear regression analysis was performed to clarify the relationship between SER and SUVmax, adjusting for tumor size, pathologic grade, and receptor status. RESULTS: Analyzed were 117 invasive breast cancers in 117 patients. Overall, a higher percentage of high washout kinetics was positively associated with SUVmax (1.57% increase in SUVmax per 1% increase in high washout; P = .020), and a higher percentage of low plateau kinetics was negatively associated with SUVmax (1.19% decrease in SUVmax per 1% increase in low plateau; P = .003). These relationships were strongest among triple-negative (TN) tumors (4.34% increase in SUVmax per 1% increase in high washout and 2.65% decrease in SUVmax per 1% increase in low plateau; P = .018 and .004, respectively). CONCLUSION: In invasive breast carcinoma, there is a positive relationship between the percentage of high washout and SUVmax and a negative relationship between the percentage of low plateau and SUVmax. These results are stronger in TN tumors. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130058/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
Authors: Franca Podo; Lutgarde M C Buydens; Hadassa Degani; Riet Hilhorst; Edda Klipp; Ingrid S Gribbestad; Sabine Van Huffel; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Jan Luts; Daniel Monleon; Geert J Postma; Nicole Schneiderhan-Marra; Filippo Santoro; Hans Wouters; Hege G Russnes; Therese Sørlie; Elda Tagliabue; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: M V Knopp; E Weiss; H P Sinn; J Mattern; H Junkermann; J Radeleff; A Magener; G Brix; S Delorme; I Zuna; G van Kaick Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Boon-Keng Teo; Youngho Seo; Stephen L Bacharach; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Steven K Libutti; Himanshu Shukla; Bruce H Hasegawa; Randall A Hawkins; Benjamin L Franc Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Scott I K Semple; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas W Redpath; Roger T Staff; Trevor S Ahearn; Andrew E Welch; Steven D Heys; Andrew W Hutcheon; Elizabeth H Smyth; Shailesh Chaturvedi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-08-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jamal J Derakhshan; Elizabeth S McDonald; Evan S Siegelman; Mitchell D Schnall; Felix W Wehrli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ella F Jones; Kimberly M Ray; Wen Li; Youngho Seo; Benjamin L Franc; Amy J Chien; Laura J Esserman; Miguel H Pampaloni; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Gengbo Liu; Debasis Mitra; Ella F Jones; Benjamin L Franc; Spencer C Behr; Alex Nguyen; Marjan S Bolouri; Dorota J Wisner; Bonnie N Joe; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton; Youngho Seo Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.903
Authors: Ana María Garcia-Vicente; David Molina; Julián Pérez-Beteta; Mariano Amo-Salas; Alicia Martínez-González; Gloria Bueno; María Jesús Tello-Galán; Ángel Soriano-Castrejón Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 2.668