Literature DB >> 33575660

Measuring Glucose Uptake in Primary Invasive Breast Cancer Using Simultaneous Time-of-Flight Breast PET/MRI: A Method Comparison Study with Prone PET/CT.

Amy M Fowler1, Manoj Kumar1, Leah Henze Bancroft1, Kelley Salem1, Jacob M Johnson1, Jillian Karow1, Scott B Perlman1, Tyler J Bradshaw1, Samuel A Hurley1, Alan B McMillan1, Roberta M Strigel1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the measurement of glucose uptake in primary invasive breast cancer using simultaneous, time-of-flight breast PET/MRI with prone time-of-flight PET/CT. Materials and
Methods: In this prospective study, women with biopsy-proven invasive breast cancer undergoing preoperative breast MRI from 2016 to 2018 were eligible. Participants who had fasted underwent prone PET/CT of the breasts approximately 60 minutes after injection of 370 MBq (10 mCi) fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) followed by prone PET/MRI using standard clinical breast MRI sequences performed simultaneously with PET acquisition. Volumes of interest were drawn for tumors and contralateral normal breast fibroglandular tissue to calculate standardized uptake values (SUVs). Spearman correlation, Wilcoxon signed ranked test, Mann-Whitney test, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed.
Results: Twenty-three women (mean age, 50 years; range, 33-70 years) were included. Correlation between tumor uptake values measured with PET/MRI and PET/CT was strong (r s = 0.95-0.98). No difference existed between modalities for tumor maximum SUV (SUVmax) normalized to normal breast tissue SUVmean (normSUVmax) (P = .58). The least amount of measurement bias was observed with normSUVmax, +3.86% (95% limits of agreement: -28.92, +36.64).
Conclusion: These results demonstrate measurement agreement between PET/CT, the current reference standard for tumor glucose uptake quantification, and simultaneous time-of-flight breast 18F-FDG PET/MRI.Keywords: Breast, Comparative Studies, PET/CT, PET/MR Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021See also the commentary by Mankoff and Surti in this issue. 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33575660      PMCID: PMC7850238          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2021200091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  49 in total

1.  Feasibility of 18F-FDG Dose Reductions in Breast Cancer PET/MRI.

Authors:  Bert-Ram Sah; Soleen Ghafoor; Irene A Burger; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Tetsuro Sekine; Gaspar Delso; Martin Huellner; Konstantin J Dedes; Andreas Boss; Patrick Veit-Haibach
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Role of fusion of prone FDG-PET and magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts in the evaluation of breast cancer.

Authors:  Linda Moy; Marilyn E Noz; Gerald Q Maguire; Amy Melsaether; Abby E Deans; Antoinette D Murphy-Walcott; Fabio Ponzo
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Comparison of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake between PET from a simultaneously acquiring whole-body PET/MR hybrid scanner and PET from PET/CT.

Authors:  Marco Wiesmüller; Harald H Quick; Bharath Navalpakkam; Michael M Lell; Michael Uder; Philipp Ritt; Daniela Schmidt; Michael Beck; Torsten Kuwert; Carl C von Gall
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Can 18F-FDG PET improve the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions on MRI?

Authors:  Almir G V Bitencourt; Eduardo N P Lima; Rubens Chojniak; Elvira F Marques; Juliana A Souza; Wesley P Andrade; Marcos D Guimarães
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 5.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker.

Authors:  Nola Hylton
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-07-10       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Tumor Staging in Patients With Primary Breast Cancer: A Comparison With Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Johannes Grueneisen; James Nagarajah; Christian Buchbender; Oliver Hoffmann; Benedikt Michael Schaarschmidt; Thorsten Poeppel; Michael Forsting; Harald H Quick; Lale Umutlu; Sonja Kinner
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  Potential of dual-time-point imaging to improve breast cancer diagnosis with (18)F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Rakesh Kumar; Vilert A Loving; Anil Chauhan; Hongming Zhuang; Schnall Mitchell; Abass Alavi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Physical performance of the new hybrid PET∕CT Discovery-690.

Authors:  V Bettinardi; L Presotto; E Rapisarda; M Picchio; L Gianolli; M C Gilardi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  PET/CT for Patients With Breast Cancer: Where Is the Clinical Impact?

Authors:  Gary A Ulaner
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Assessment of Aggressiveness of Breast Cancer Using Simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET and DCE-MRI: Preliminary Observation.

Authors:  Nathaniel E Margolis; Linda Moy; Eric E Sigmund; Melanie Freed; Jason McKellop; Amy N Melsaether; Sungheon Gene Kim
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 7.794

View more
  2 in total

1.  PET/MRI for Primary Breast Cancer: A Match Made Better by PET Quantification?

Authors:  David A Mankoff; Suleman Surti
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-01-15

Review 2.  The emerging role of photoacoustic imaging in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Li Lin; Lihong V Wang
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 66.675

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.