Doris Leithner1, Pascal A Baltzer2, Heinrich F Magometschnigg2, Georg J Wengert2, Georgios Karanikas3, Thomas H Helbich4, Michael Weber2, Wolfgang Wadsak3, Katja Pinker2. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; and. 2. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. 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.
Abstract
Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) assessed with MRI have been implicated as sensitive imaging biomarkers for breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively assess breast parenchymal uptake (BPU) on 18F-FDG PET/CT as another valuable imaging biomarker and examine its correlation with BPE, FGT, and age. METHODS: This study included 129 patients with suspected breast cancer and normal imaging findings in one breast (BI-RADS 1), whose cases were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent prone 18F-FDG PET/CT and 3-T contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. In all patients, interpreter 1 assessed BPU quantitatively using SUVmax Interpreters 1 and 2 assessed amount of FGT and BPE in the normal contralateral breast by subjective visual estimation, as recommended by BI-RADS. Interpreter 1 reassessed all cases and repeated the BPU measurements. Statistical tests were used to assess correlations between BPU, BPE, FGT, and age, as well as inter- and intrainterpreter agreement. RESULTS: BPU on 18F-FDG PET/CT varied among patients. The mean BPU SUVmax ± SD was 1.57 ± 0.6 for patients with minimal BPE, 1.93 ± 0.6 for mild BPE, 2.42 ± 0.5 for moderate BPE, and 1.45 ± 0.3 for marked BPE. There were significant (P < 0.001) moderate to strong correlations among BPU, BPE, and FGT. BPU directly correlated with both BPE and FGT on MRI. Patient age showed a moderate to strong indirect correlation with all 3 imaging-derived tissue biomarkers. The coefficient of variation for quantitative BPU measurements with SUVmax was 5.6%, indicating a high reproducibility. Interinterpreter and intrainterpreter agreement for BPE and FGT was almost perfect, with a κ-value of 0.860 and 0.822, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of our study demonstrate that BPU varied among patients. BPU directly correlated with both BPE and FGT on MRI, and BPU measurements were highly reproducible. Patient age showed a strong inverse correlation with all 3 imaging-derived tissue biomarkers. These findings indicate that BPU may serve as a sensitive imaging biomarker for breast cancer prediction, prognosis, and risk assessment.
Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) assessed with MRI have been implicated as sensitive imaging biomarkers for breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively assess breast parenchymal uptake (BPU) on 18F-FDG PET/CT as another valuable imaging biomarker and examine its correlation with BPE, FGT, and age. METHODS: This study included 129 patients with suspected breast cancer and normal imaging findings in one breast (BI-RADS 1), whose cases were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent prone 18F-FDG PET/CT and 3-T contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. In all patients, interpreter 1 assessed BPU quantitatively using SUVmax Interpreters 1 and 2 assessed amount of FGT and BPE in the normal contralateral breast by subjective visual estimation, as recommended by BI-RADS. Interpreter 1 reassessed all cases and repeated the BPU measurements. Statistical tests were used to assess correlations between BPU, BPE, FGT, and age, as well as inter- and intrainterpreter agreement. RESULTS:BPU on 18F-FDG PET/CT varied among patients. The mean BPU SUVmax ± SD was 1.57 ± 0.6 for patients with minimal BPE, 1.93 ± 0.6 for mild BPE, 2.42 ± 0.5 for moderate BPE, and 1.45 ± 0.3 for marked BPE. There were significant (P < 0.001) moderate to strong correlations among BPU, BPE, and FGT. BPU directly correlated with both BPE and FGT on MRI. Patient age showed a moderate to strong indirect correlation with all 3 imaging-derived tissue biomarkers. The coefficient of variation for quantitative BPU measurements with SUVmax was 5.6%, indicating a high reproducibility. Interinterpreter and intrainterpreter agreement for BPE and FGT was almost perfect, with a κ-value of 0.860 and 0.822, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of our study demonstrate that BPU varied among patients. BPU directly correlated with both BPE and FGT on MRI, and BPU measurements were highly reproducible. Patient age showed a strong inverse correlation with all 3 imaging-derived tissue biomarkers. These findings indicate that BPU may serve as a sensitive imaging biomarker for breast cancer prediction, prognosis, and risk assessment.
Authors: Geraldine J Liao; Leah C Henze Bancroft; Roberta M Strigel; Rhea D Chitalia; Despina Kontos; Linda Moy; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Young-Sil An; Yongsik Jung; Ji Young Kim; Sehwan Han; Doo Kyoung Kang; Seon Young Park; Tae Hee Kim Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.588
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: Roberto Lo Gullo; Isaac Daimiel; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Almir Bitencourt; Varadan Sevilimedu; Danny F Martinez; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Jeffrey S Reiner; Katja Pinker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Michelle Zhang; Meredith Sadinski; Dana Haddad; Min Sun Bae; Danny Martinez; Elizabeth A Morris; Peter Gibbs; Elizabeth J Sutton Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 6.244