Michiro Sasaki1, Mitsuhiro Tozaki2, Kazunori Kubota3, Wakana Murakami4, Daisuke Yotsumoto5, Yasuaki Sagara5, Yasuyo Ohi6, Shunichi Oosako7, Yoshiaki Sagara2. 1. Department of Radiology, Sagara Perth Avenue Clinic, 26-13 Shinyashiki-cho, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, 892-0838, Japan. chacha622@sagara.or.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, Sagara Hospital Affiliated Breast Center, 3-28 Tenokuchi-cho, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, 892-0845, Japan. 3. Department of Medical Informatics, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, National Defense Medical College, 3-2 Namiki, Tokorozawa, Saitama, 359-0042, Japan. 5. Department of Breast Surgery, Sagara Hospital, 3-31Mtsubara-ch, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, 892-0833, Japan. 6. Department of Pathology, Sagara Hospital, 3-31Mtsubara-cho, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, 892-0833, Japan. 7. Image Inspection Department, Sagara Perth Avenue Clinic, 26-13 Shinyashiki-cho, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, 892-0838, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare standardized uptake value (SUV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values acquired using a PET/MRI scanner in breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole-body PET/MRI and breast PET/MRI were performed in 108 consecutive patients. Ninety-four patients who had a total of 100 breast cancers were analyzed. SUVmax and ADCmean acquired using breast PET/MRI were compared with pathologic prognostic factors. RESULTS: All the lesions were visually detectable using PET and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on breast PET/MRI; however, lesions were visually undetectable on whole-body DWI in 13 patients (13%) or on whole-body PET in 7 patients (7%). An analysis of ADCmean and SUVmax demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between whole-body imaging and breast imaging (rho = 0.613, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.928, p < 0.001, respectively). In a univariate analysis, SUVmax was significantly correlated with HER2 status (p < 0.001), Ki-67 (p = 0.014), tumor size (p = 0.0177), and nuclear grade (p = 0.0448). In multiple regression analysis, only tumor size (p = 0.00701) was shown to independently influence SUVmax. CONCLUSION: Prone breast imaging was more sensitive than whole-body PET/MRI for detection of breast cancers. Both SUVmax and ADCmean showed limited correlation with pathologic prognostic factors.
PURPOSE: To compare standardized uptake value (SUV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values acquired using a PET/MRI scanner in breast cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole-body PET/MRI and breast PET/MRI were performed in 108 consecutive patients. Ninety-four patients who had a total of 100 breast cancers were analyzed. SUVmax and ADCmean acquired using breast PET/MRI were compared with pathologic prognostic factors. RESULTS: All the lesions were visually detectable using PET and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on breast PET/MRI; however, lesions were visually undetectable on whole-body DWI in 13 patients (13%) or on whole-body PET in 7 patients (7%). An analysis of ADCmean and SUVmax demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between whole-body imaging and breast imaging (rho = 0.613, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.928, p < 0.001, respectively). In a univariate analysis, SUVmax was significantly correlated with HER2 status (p < 0.001), Ki-67 (p = 0.014), tumor size (p = 0.0177), and nuclear grade (p = 0.0448). In multiple regression analysis, only tumor size (p = 0.00701) was shown to independently influence SUVmax. CONCLUSION: Prone breast imaging was more sensitive than whole-body PET/MRI for detection of breast cancers. Both SUVmax and ADCmean showed limited correlation with pathologic prognostic factors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apparent diffusion coefficient; Breast carcinoma; Diffusion-weighted imaging; PET/MRI; Standardized uptake value
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Anna Kuisma; Susan Ramadan; Riikka Huovinen; Minna Sandell; Sami Kajander; Jukka Kemppainen; Esa Kauppila; Joakim Auren; Harri Merisaari; Jani Saunavaara; Tommi Noponen; Heikki Minn; Hannu J Aronen; Marko Seppänen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J Wehner; B Weissler; P M Dueppenbecker; P Gebhardt; B Goldschmidt; D Schug; F Kiessling; V Schulz Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Matthias Eiber; Stephan G Nekolla; Michael Souvatzoglou; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Dania Daye; Alberto Signore; Carlo Iannace; Mark Vangel; Angelo Luongo; Marco Catalano; Mazzeo Filomena; Luigi Mansi; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Niccolo Fuin; Ciprian Catana; Umar Mahmood; Bruce Robert Rosen Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057