Yayoi Yamamoto1, Youichiro Tasaki2, Yukiko Kuwada2, Yukihiko Ozawa2, Tomio Inoue3. 1. Yuai Clinic, 1-6-2 Kitashinyokohama, Kohoku-Ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 223-0059, Japan. yamamoto.yayoi@yuai.org. 2. Yuai Clinic, 1-6-2 Kitashinyokohama, Kohoku-Ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 223-0059, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) have had a considerable impact on the detection of various malignancies. PET and PET/CT are minimally invasive methods that can provide whole-body imaging at one time. Therefore, an FDG-PET cancer screening program has been widely used in Japan. However, the breast cancer detection rate of FDG-PET cancer screening is relatively low. Therefore, FDG-PET screening is not recommended for breast cancer screening. Positron emission mammography (PEM) is a high-resolution molecular breast imaging technology. PEM can detect small breast cancers that cannot be detected on PET or PET/CT images due to limited spatial resolution. We have performed opportunistic breast cancer screening using PEM since 2011. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report regarding PEM breast cancer screening. METHODS: This study enrolled 265 women. PEM images were analyzed by agreement of 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians. The readers were given information from medical interview sheet. US findings were interpreted holistically. The number of participants, patient recall rate, further examination rate, and cancer detection rate by year were calculated. RESULTS: The overall recall rate was 8.3%; the work-up examination rate was 77.3%, and cancer detection rate was 2.3%. The positive predictive value of PEM was 27.3%. Six cancers were found by PEM screening. Five were invasive cancers and one was ductal carcinoma in situ. Histological tumor sizes were reported in three cases: 0.7, 1.2, and 2 cm. CONCLUSION: PEM screening appears to have potential for breast cancer screening.
OBJECTIVE:Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) have had a considerable impact on the detection of various malignancies. PET and PET/CT are minimally invasive methods that can provide whole-body imaging at one time. Therefore, an FDG-PET cancer screening program has been widely used in Japan. However, the breast cancer detection rate of FDG-PET cancer screening is relatively low. Therefore, FDG-PET screening is not recommended for breast cancer screening. Positron emission mammography (PEM) is a high-resolution molecular breast imaging technology. PEM can detect small breast cancers that cannot be detected on PET or PET/CT images due to limited spatial resolution. We have performed opportunistic breast cancer screening using PEM since 2011. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report regarding PEM breast cancer screening. METHODS: This study enrolled 265 women. PEM images were analyzed by agreement of 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians. The readers were given information from medical interview sheet. US findings were interpreted holistically. The number of participants, patient recall rate, further examination rate, and cancer detection rate by year were calculated. RESULTS: The overall recall rate was 8.3%; the work-up examination rate was 77.3%, and cancer detection rate was 2.3%. The positive predictive value of PEM was 27.3%. Six cancers were found by PEM screening. Five were invasive cancers and one was ductal carcinoma in situ. Histological tumor sizes were reported in three cases: 0.7, 1.2, and 2 cm. CONCLUSION: PEM screening appears to have potential for breast cancer screening.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer screening; FDG-PET screening; Positron emission mammography
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: Maria Silvia De Feo; Marko Magdi Abdou Sidrak; Miriam Conte; Viviana Frantellizzi; Andrea Marongiu; Flaminia De Cristofaro; Susanna Nuvoli; Angela Spanu; Giuseppe De Vincentis Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Jennifer Schmitz; Julian Schwab; Johannes Schwenck; Qian Chen; Leticia Quintanilla-Martinez; Markus Hahn; Beate Wietek; Nina Schwenzer; Annette Staebler; Ursula Kohlhofer; Olulanu H Aina; Neil E Hubbard; Gerald Reischl; Alexander D Borowsky; Sara Brucker; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christian la Fougère; Robert D Cardiff; Bernd J Pichler; Andreas M Schmid Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Braden Miller; Hunter Chalfant; Alexandra Thomas; Elizabeth Wellberg; Christina Henson; Molly W McNally; William E Grizzle; Ajay Jain; Lacey R McNally Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 5.923