Heinrich F Magometschnigg1, Pascal A Baltzer1, Barbara Fueger1, Thomas H Helbich2, Georgios Karanikas3, Peter Dubsky4, Margaretha Rudas5, Michael Weber1, Katja Pinker1,6. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. thomas.helbich@meduniwien.ac.at. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 6. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of prone (18)F-FDG PET/CT with that of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) at 3 T in suspicious breast lesions. To evaluate the influence of tumour size on diagnostic accuracy and the use of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVMAX) thresholds to differentiate malignant from benign breast lesions. METHODS: A total of 172 consecutive patients with an imaging abnormality were included in this IRB-approved prospective study. All patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI of the breast at 3 T in the prone position. Two reader teams independently evaluated the likelihood of malignancy as determined by (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI independently. (18)F-FDG PET/CT data were qualitatively evaluated by visual interpretation. Quantitative assessment was performed by calculation of SUVMAX. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, area under the curve and interreader agreement were calculated for all lesions and for lesions <10 mm. Histopathology was used as the standard of reference. RESULTS: There were 132 malignant and 40 benign lesions; 23 lesions (13.4%) were <10 mm. Both (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI achieved an overall diagnostic accuracy of 93%. There were no significant differences in sensitivity (p = 0.125), specificity (p = 0.344) or diagnostic accuracy (p = 1). For lesions <10 mm, diagnostic accuracy deteriorated to 91% with both (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI. Although no significant difference was found for lesions <10 mm, CE-MRI at 3 T seemed to be more sensitive but less specific than (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Interreader agreement was excellent (κ = 0.85 and κ = 0.92). SUVMAX threshold was not helpful in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI at 3 T showed equal diagnostic accuracies in breast cancer diagnosis. For lesions <10 mm, diagnostic accuracy deteriorated, but was equal for (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI at 3 T. For lesions <10 mm, CE-MRI at 3 T seemed to be more sensitive but less specific than (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Quantitative assessment using an SUVMAX threshold for differentiating benign from malignant lesions was not helpful in breast cancer diagnosis.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of prone (18)F-FDG PET/CT with that of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) at 3 T in suspicious breast lesions. To evaluate the influence of tumour size on diagnostic accuracy and the use of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVMAX) thresholds to differentiate malignant from benign breast lesions. METHODS: A total of 172 consecutive patients with an imaging abnormality were included in this IRB-approved prospective study. All patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI of the breast at 3 T in the prone position. Two reader teams independently evaluated the likelihood of malignancy as determined by (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI independently. (18)F-FDG PET/CT data were qualitatively evaluated by visual interpretation. Quantitative assessment was performed by calculation of SUVMAX. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, area under the curve and interreader agreement were calculated for all lesions and for lesions <10 mm. Histopathology was used as the standard of reference. RESULTS: There were 132 malignant and 40 benign lesions; 23 lesions (13.4%) were <10 mm. Both (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI achieved an overall diagnostic accuracy of 93%. There were no significant differences in sensitivity (p = 0.125), specificity (p = 0.344) or diagnostic accuracy (p = 1). For lesions <10 mm, diagnostic accuracy deteriorated to 91% with both (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI. Although no significant difference was found for lesions <10 mm, CE-MRI at 3 T seemed to be more sensitive but less specific than (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Interreader agreement was excellent (κ = 0.85 and κ = 0.92). SUVMAX threshold was not helpful in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI at 3 T showed equal diagnostic accuracies in breast cancer diagnosis. For lesions <10 mm, diagnostic accuracy deteriorated, but was equal for (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CE-MRI at 3 T. For lesions <10 mm, CE-MRI at 3 T seemed to be more sensitive but less specific than (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Quantitative assessment using an SUVMAX threshold for differentiating benign from malignant lesions was not helpful in breast cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Emanuel Kanal; A James Barkovich; Charlotte Bell; James P Borgstede; William G Bradley; Jerry W Froelich; J Rod Gimbel; John W Gosbee; Ellisa Kuhni-Kaminski; Paul A Larson; James W Lester; John Nyenhuis; Daniel Joe Schaefer; Elizabeth A Sebek; Jeffrey Weinreb; Bruce L Wilkoff; Terry O Woods; Leonard Lucey; Dina Hernandez Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: R M Mann; C E Loo; T Wobbes; P Bult; J O Barentsz; K G A Gilhuijs; C Boetes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Bas B Koolen; Femke van der Leij; Wouter V Vogel; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Renato A Valdés Olmos Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Heinrich Magometschnigg; Katja Pinker; Thomas Helbich; Anita Brandstetter; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas Nakuz; Pascal Baltzer; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marcus Hacker; Michael Weber; Peter Dubsky; Martin Filipits Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Doris Leithner; Thomas H Helbich; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Maria Adele Marino; Daly Avendano; Danny F Martinez; Maxine S Jochelson; Panagiotis Kapetas; Pascal A T Baltzer; Alexander Haug; Marcus Hacker; Yasemin Tanyildizi; Elizabeth A Morris; Katja Pinker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolf-Dieter Vogl; Katja Pinker; Thomas H Helbich; Hubert Bickel; Günther Grabner; Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Peter Dubsky; Georg Langs Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2019-04-27
Authors: Doris Leithner; Joao V Horvat; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Thomas H Helbich; R Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui; Danny F Martinez; Michelle Zhang; Sunitha B Thakur; Georg J Wengert; Anton Staudenherz; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal A T Baltzer; Paola Clauser; Panagiotis Kapetas; Katja Pinker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: V Romeo; P Clauser; S Rasul; P Kapetas; P Gibbs; P A T Baltzer; M Hacker; R Woitek; T H Helbich; K Pinker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 10.057