PURPOSE: To compare the performance characteristics of positron emission mammography (PEM) with those of whole-body PET (WBPET) and PET/CT in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 178 women consented to PEM for presurgical planning in an IRB-approved protocol and also underwent either WBPET (n = 69) or PET/CT (n = 109) imaging, as per usual care at three centers. Tumor detection sensitivity, positive predictive values, and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake were compared between the modalities. The effects of tumor size, type, and grade on detection were examined. The chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare distributions between groups, and McNemar's test was used to compare distributions for paired data within subject groups, i.e. PEM versus WBPET or PEM versus PET/CT. RESULTS: The mean age of the women was 59 ± 12 years (median 60 years, range 26-89 years), with a mean invasive index tumor size of 1.6 ± 0.8 cm (median 1.5 cm, range 0.5-4.0 cm). PEM detected more index tumors (61/66, 92%) than WBPET (37/66, 56%; p < 0.001) or PET/CT (95/109, 87% vs. 104/109, 95% for PEM; p < 0.029). Sensitivity for the detection of additional ipsilateral malignancies was also greater with PEM (7/15, 47%) than with WBPET (1/15, 6.7%; p = 0.014) or PET/CT (3/23, 13% vs. 13/23, 57% for PEM; p = 0.003). Index tumor detection decreased with decreasing invasive tumor size for both WBPET (p = 0.002) and PET/CT (p < 0.001); PEM was not significantly affected (p = 0.20). FDG uptake, quantified in terms of maximum PEM uptake value, was lowest in ductal carcinoma in situ (median 1.5, range 0.7-3.0) and invasive lobular carcinoma (median 1.5, range 0.7-3.4), and highest in grade III invasive ductal carcinoma (median 3.1, range 1.4-12.9). CONCLUSION: PEM was more sensitive than either WBPET or PET/CT in showing index and additional ipsilateral breast tumors and remained highly sensitive for tumors smaller than 1 cm.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance characteristics of positron emission mammography (PEM) with those of whole-body PET (WBPET) and PET/CT in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 178 women consented to PEM for presurgical planning in an IRB-approved protocol and also underwent either WBPET (n = 69) or PET/CT (n = 109) imaging, as per usual care at three centers. Tumor detection sensitivity, positive predictive values, and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake were compared between the modalities. The effects of tumor size, type, and grade on detection were examined. The chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare distributions between groups, and McNemar's test was used to compare distributions for paired data within subject groups, i.e. PEM versus WBPET or PEM versus PET/CT. RESULTS: The mean age of the women was 59 ± 12 years (median 60 years, range 26-89 years), with a mean invasive index tumor size of 1.6 ± 0.8 cm (median 1.5 cm, range 0.5-4.0 cm). PEM detected more index tumors (61/66, 92%) than WBPET (37/66, 56%; p < 0.001) or PET/CT (95/109, 87% vs. 104/109, 95% for PEM; p < 0.029). Sensitivity for the detection of additional ipsilateral malignancies was also greater with PEM (7/15, 47%) than with WBPET (1/15, 6.7%; p = 0.014) or PET/CT (3/23, 13% vs. 13/23, 57% for PEM; p = 0.003). Index tumor detection decreased with decreasing invasive tumor size for both WBPET (p = 0.002) and PET/CT (p < 0.001); PEM was not significantly affected (p = 0.20). FDG uptake, quantified in terms of maximum PEM uptake value, was lowest in ductal carcinoma in situ (median 1.5, range 0.7-3.0) and invasive lobular carcinoma (median 1.5, range 0.7-3.4), and highest in grade III invasive ductal carcinoma (median 3.1, range 1.4-12.9). CONCLUSION: PEM was more sensitive than either WBPET or PET/CT in showing index and additional ipsilateral breast tumors and remained highly sensitive for tumors smaller than 1 cm.
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: N Avril; S Bense; S I Ziegler; J Dose; W Weber; C Laubenbacher; W Römer; F Jänicke; M Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: N H G M Peters; S van Esser; M A A J van den Bosch; R K Storm; P W Plaisier; T van Dalen; S C E Diepstraten; T Weits; P J Westenend; G Stapper; M A Fernandez-Gallardo; I H M Borel Rinkes; R van Hillegersberg; W P Th M Mali; P H M Peeters Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: U Veronesi; C De Cicco; V E Galimberti; J R Fernandez; N Rotmensz; G Viale; G Spano; A Luini; M Intra; P Veronesi; A Berrettini; G Paganelli Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-12-12 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Steven G Lee; Susan G Orel; Irene J Woo; Eva Cruz-Jove; Mary E Putt; Lawrence J Solin; Brian J Czerniecki; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: William B Eubank; David Mankoff; Mallar Bhattacharya; Julie Gralow; Hannah Linden; Georgiana Ellis; Skyler Lindsley; Mary Austin-Seymour; Robert Livingston Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Monique D Dorrius; Erik F J de Vries; Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lawrence R MacDonald; Joseph Y Lo; Gregory M Sturgeon; Chengeng Zeng; Robert L Harrison; Paul E Kinahan; William Paul Segars Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Almir G V Bitencourt; Eduardo N P Lima; Bruna R C Macedo; Jorge L F A Conrado; Elvira F Marques; Rubens Chojniak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephane Zervoudis; George Iatrakis; Eirini Tomara; Anastasia Bothou; George Papadopoulos; George Tsakiris Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-10