Suzana C Teixeira1,2, José Ferrér Rebolleda3, Bas B Koolen1,2, Jelle Wesseling4, Raúl Sánchez Jurado3, Marcel P M Stokkel1, María Del Puig Cózar Santiago3, Vincent van der Noort5, Emiel J Th Rutgers2, Renato A Valdés Olmos1. 1. 1 Nuclear Medicine Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. 2 Surgery Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. 3 Nuclear Medicien Service, ERESA General University Hospital of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. 4 Pathology Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. 5 Biometrics Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the performance of a mammography with molecular imaging PET (MAMMI-PET) system for breast imaging in the hanging-breast position for the visualization of primary breast cancer lesions and to compare this method with whole-body PET/CT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between March 2011 and March 2014, a prospective evaluation included women with one or more histologically confirmed primary breast cancer lesions (index lesions). After injection of 180-240 MBq of (18)F-FDG, whole-body PET/CT and MAMMI-PET acquisitions were performed, index lesions were scored 0, 1, or 2 for FDG uptake relative to background. Detection and FDG uptake were compared by breast length, maximal tumor diameter, affected breast quadrants, tumor grade, and histologic and immunologic sub-types. Finally, the two PET modalities were compared for detection of index lesions. RESULTS: For 234 index lesions (diameter, 5-170 mm), the overall sensitivity was 88.9% for MAMMI-PET and 91% for PET/CT (p = 0.61). Twenty-three (9.8%) index lesions located too close to the pectoral muscle were missed with MAMMI-PET, and 20 index lesions were missed with PET/CT. Lesion visibility on MAMMI-PET images was influenced by tumor grade (p = 0.034) but not by cancer subtype (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Although in an overall evaluation MAMMI-PET was not superior to PET/CT, MAMMI-PET does have higher sensitivity for primary breast cancer lesions within the scanning range of the device. Optimization of the positioning device may increase visualization of the most dorsal lesions.
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the performance of a mammography with molecular imaging PET (MAMMI-PET) system for breast imaging in the hanging-breast position for the visualization of primary breast cancer lesions and to compare this method with whole-body PET/CT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between March 2011 and March 2014, a prospective evaluation included women with one or more histologically confirmed primary breast cancer lesions (index lesions). After injection of 180-240 MBq of (18)F-FDG, whole-body PET/CT and MAMMI-PET acquisitions were performed, index lesions were scored 0, 1, or 2 for FDG uptake relative to background. Detection and FDG uptake were compared by breast length, maximal tumor diameter, affected breast quadrants, tumor grade, and histologic and immunologic sub-types. Finally, the two PET modalities were compared for detection of index lesions. RESULTS: For 234 index lesions (diameter, 5-170 mm), the overall sensitivity was 88.9% for MAMMI-PET and 91% for PET/CT (p = 0.61). Twenty-three (9.8%) index lesions located too close to the pectoral muscle were missed with MAMMI-PET, and 20 index lesions were missed with PET/CT. Lesion visibility on MAMMI-PET images was influenced by tumor grade (p = 0.034) but not by cancer subtype (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Although in an overall evaluation MAMMI-PET was not superior to PET/CT, MAMMI-PET does have higher sensitivity for primary breast cancer lesions within the scanning range of the device. Optimization of the positioning device may increase visualization of the most dorsal lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
PET/CT; breast cancer; dedicated PET; molecular imaging; oncology
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: 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: Michael K O'Connor; Thuy D Tran; Tiffinee N Swanson; Lacey R Ellingson; Katie N Hunt; Dana H Whaley Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Deep K Hathi; Wen Li; Youngho Seo; Robert R Flavell; John Kornak; Benjamin L Franc; Bonnie N Joe; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton; Ella F Jones Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; B Goorts; S Vöö; M de Boer; L F S Kooreman; E M Heuts; J E Wildberger; F M Mottaghy; M B I Lobbes; M L Smidt Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236