Literature DB >> 27585658

Can positron emission mammography help to identify clinically significant breast cancer in women with suspicious calcifications on mammography?

Almir G V Bitencourt1, Eduardo N P Lima2, Bruna R C Macedo2, Jorge L F A Conrado2, Elvira F Marques2, Rubens Chojniak2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of positron emission mammography (PEM) for identifying malignant lesions in patients with suspicious microcalcifications detected on mammography.
METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study that evaluated 40 patients with suspicious calcifications at mammography and indication for percutaneous or surgical biopsy, with mean age of 56.4 years (range: 28-81 years). Patients who agreed to participate in the study underwent PEM with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose before the final histological evaluation. PEM findings were compared with mammography and histological findings.
RESULTS: Most calcifications (n = 34; 85.0 %) were classified as BIRADS 4. On histology, there were 25 (62.5 %) benign and 15 (37.5 %) malignant lesions, including 11 (27.5 %) ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 4 (10 %) invasive carcinomas. On subjective analysis, PEM was positive in 15 cases (37.5 %) and most of these cases (n = 14; 93.3 %) were confirmed as malignant on histology. There was one false-positive result, which corresponded to a fibroadenoma, and one false negative, which corresponded to an intermediate-grade DCIS. PEM had a sensitivity of 93.3 %, specificity of 96.0 % and accuracy of 95 %.
CONCLUSION: PEM was able to identify all invasive carcinomas and high-grade DCIS (nuclear grade 3) in the presented sample, suggesting that this method may be useful for further evaluation of patients with suspected microcalcifications. KEY POINTS: • Many patients with suspicious microcalcifications at mammography have benign results at biopsy. • PEM may help to identify invasive carcinomas and high-grade DCIS. • Management of patients with suspicious calcifications can be improved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast neoplasms; Carcinoma ductal in situ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Mammography; Positron emission tomography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27585658     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4576-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  38 in total

1.  Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast.

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

2.  Breast Cancer Mortality After a Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Steven A Narod; Javaid Iqbal; Vasily Giannakeas; Victoria Sopik; Ping Sun
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 3.  Breast MR Imaging for Equivocal Mammographic Findings: Help or Hindrance?

Authors:  Catherine S Giess; Sona A Chikarmane; Dorothy A Sippo; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 4.  The current status of positron emission mammography in breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Vasileios Kalles; George C Zografos; Xeni Provatopoulou; Dimitra Koulocheri; Antonia Gounaris
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 4.239

5.  Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial.

Authors:  Massimo Bazzocchi; Chiara Zuiani; Pietro Panizza; Chiara Del Frate; Franca Soldano; Miriam Isola; Francesco Sardanelli; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Diagnostic performance of dedicated positron emission mammography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in women with suspicious breast lesions: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Carmelo Caldarella; Giorgio Treglia; Alessandro Giordano
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2013-12-27       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 7.  False-negative diagnoses at stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle breast biopsy: long-term follow-up of 1,280 lesions and review of the literature.

Authors:  Roger J Jackman; Francis A Marzoni; Jarrett Rosenberg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Evan R Myers; Patricia Moorman; Jennifer M Gierisch; Laura J Havrilesky; Lars J Grimm; Sujata Ghate; Brittany Davidson; Ranee Chatterjee Mongtomery; Matthew J Crowley; Douglas C McCrory; Amy Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography.

Authors:  Yayoi Yamamoto; Youichiro Tasaki; Yukiko Kuwada; Yukihiko Ozawa; Tomio Inoue
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 2.668

Review 10.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: morphological and molecular features implicated in progression.

Authors:  Dirce M Carraro; Eliana V Elias; Victor P Andrade
Journal:  Biosci Rep       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 3.840

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Use of Breast-Specific PET Scanners and Comparison with MR Imaging.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.266

2.  Can dedicated breast PET help to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment by differentiating between indolent and potentially aggressive ductal carcinoma in situ?

Authors:  Lucía Graña-López; Michel Herranz; Inés Domínguez-Prado; Sonia Argibay; Ángeles Villares; Manuel Vázquez-Caruncho
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 5.315

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.