AIM: To clarify clinicopathological features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) visualized on [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed 52 consecutive tumors in 50 patients with pathologically proven pure DCIS who underwent [F-18] FDG-PET/CT before surgery. [F-18] FDG-PET/CT was performed after biopsy in all patients. The mean interval from biopsy to [F-18] FDG-PET/CT was 29.2 d. [F-18] FDG uptake by visual analysis and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was compared with clinicopathological characteristics. RESULTS: [F-18] FDG uptake was visualized in 28 lesions (53.8%) and the mean and standard deviation of SUVmax was 1.63 and 0.90. On univariate analysis, visual analysis and the SUVmax were associated with symptomatic presentation (P = 0.012 and 0.002, respectively), palpability (P = 0.030 and 0.024, respectively), use of core-needle biopsy (CNB) (P = 0.023 and 0.012, respectively), ultrasound-guided biopsy (P = 0.040 and 0.006, respectively), enhancing lesion ≥ 20 mm on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (P = 0.001 and 0.010, respectively), tumor size ≥ 20 mm on histopathology (P = 0.002 and 0.008, respectively). However, [F-18] FDG uptake parameters were not significantly associated with age, presence of calcification on mammography, mass formation on MRI, presence of comedo necrosis, hormone status (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2), and nuclear grade. The factors significantly associated with visual analysis and SUVmax were symptomatic presentation (P = 0.019 and 0.001, respectively), use of CNB (P = 0.001 and 0.031, respectively), and enhancing lesion ≥ 20 mm on MRI (P = 0.001 and 0.049, respectively) on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Although DCIS of breast is generally non-avid tumor, symptomatic and large tumors (≥ 20 mm) tend to be visualized on [F-18] FDG-PET/CT.
AIM: To clarify clinicopathological features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) visualized on [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed 52 consecutive tumors in 50 patients with pathologically proven pure DCIS who underwent [F-18] FDG-PET/CT before surgery. [F-18] FDG-PET/CT was performed after biopsy in all patients. The mean interval from biopsy to [F-18] FDG-PET/CT was 29.2 d. [F-18] FDG uptake by visual analysis and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was compared with clinicopathological characteristics. RESULTS: [F-18] FDG uptake was visualized in 28 lesions (53.8%) and the mean and standard deviation of SUVmax was 1.63 and 0.90. On univariate analysis, visual analysis and the SUVmax were associated with symptomatic presentation (P = 0.012 and 0.002, respectively), palpability (P = 0.030 and 0.024, respectively), use of core-needle biopsy (CNB) (P = 0.023 and 0.012, respectively), ultrasound-guided biopsy (P = 0.040 and 0.006, respectively), enhancing lesion ≥ 20 mm on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (P = 0.001 and 0.010, respectively), tumor size ≥ 20 mm on histopathology (P = 0.002 and 0.008, respectively). However, [F-18] FDG uptake parameters were not significantly associated with age, presence of calcification on mammography, mass formation on MRI, presence of comedo necrosis, hormone status (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2), and nuclear grade. The factors significantly associated with visual analysis and SUVmax were symptomatic presentation (P = 0.019 and 0.001, respectively), use of CNB (P = 0.001 and 0.031, respectively), and enhancing lesion ≥ 20 mm on MRI (P = 0.001 and 0.049, respectively) on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Although DCIS of breast is generally non-avid tumor, symptomatic and large tumors (≥ 20 mm) tend to be visualized on [F-18] FDG-PET/CT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Positron emission tomography; [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography
Authors: A Y Rostom; J Powe; A Kandil; A Ezzat; S Bakheet; F el-Khwsky; G el-Hussainy; R Sorbris; O Sjoklint Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Meagan E Brennan; Robin M Turner; Stefano Ciatto; M Luke Marinovich; James R French; Petra Macaskill; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: N Avril; C A Rosé; M Schelling; J Dose; W Kuhn; S Bense; W Weber; S Ziegler; H Graeff; M Schwaiger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Arjan P Schouten van der Velden; Margrethe S Schlooz-Vries; Carla Boetes; Theo Wobbes Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-04-17 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Duska Vranjesevic; Christiaan Schiepers; Daniel H Silverman; Andrew Quon; James Villalpando; Magnus Dahlbom; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.057