Janna Morawitz1, Nils-Martin Bruckmann1, Frederic Dietzel1, Tim Ullrich1, Ann-Kathrin Bittner2, Oliver Hoffmann2, Svjetlana Mohrmann3, Lena Haeberle4, Marc Ingenwerth5, Lale Umutlu6, Wolfgang Peter Fendler7, Tanja Fehm8, Ken Herrmann9, Gerald Antoch1, Lino Morris Sawicki1, Julian Kirchner1. 1. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Germany. 2. University Hospital Essen, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Germany. 3. Department of Gynecology, Germany. 4. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Institute of Pathology, Germany. 5. University Hospital Essen, Institute of Pathology, Germany. 6. University Hospital Essen, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, Germany. 7. Essen University Hospital, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Germany. 8. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Gynecology, Germany. 9. University Hospital Essen, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Germany.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracal MRI, thoracal 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET)/MRI and axillary sonography for the detection of axillary lymph node metastases in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This prospective double-center study included patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer between March 2018 and December 2019. Patients underwent thoracal (18F-FDG PET/)MRI, axillary sonography, and dedicated prone breast MRI. Datasets were evaluated separately regarding nodal status (nodal+ vs. nodal-). Histopathology served as reference standard in all patients. The diagnostic performance of breast MRI, thoracal MRI, thoracal PET/MRI and axillary sonography in detecting nodal positive patients was tested by creating receiver-operating-characteristic curves (ROC) with a calculated area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated for all four modalities. A McNemar test was used to assess differences. Results: 112 female patients (mean age 53.04 ± 12.6 years) were evaluated. Thoracal PET/MRI showed the highest ROC-AUC with a value of 0.892. The AUC for breast MRI, thoracal MRI and sonography were 0.782, 0.814 and 0.834, respectively. Differences between thoracal PET/MRI and axillary sonography, thoracal MRI and breast MRI were statistically significant (PET/MRI vs. axillary sonography, P = 0.01; PET/MRI vs. thoracal MRI, P = 0.02; PET/MRI vs. breast MRI, P = 0.03). PET/MRI showed the highest sensitivity (81.8%, 36/44) (95%-CI: 67.29-91.81%) while axillary sonography had the highest specificity (98.5%, 65/66), 95%-CI: 91.84-99.96%). Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET/MRI outperforms axillary sonography, breast MRI and thoracal MRI in determining the axillary lymph node status. In a clinical setting, the combination of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and axillary sonography might be considered to provide even more accuracy in diagnosis.
Purpose: To compare breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracal MRI, thoracal 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET)/MRI and axillary sonography for the detection of axillary lymph node metastases in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This prospective double-center study included patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer between March 2018 and December 2019. Patients underwent thoracal (18F-FDG PET/)MRI, axillary sonography, and dedicated prone breast MRI. Datasets were evaluated separately regarding nodal status (nodal+ vs. nodal-). Histopathology served as reference standard in all patients. The diagnostic performance of breast MRI, thoracal MRI, thoracal PET/MRI and axillary sonography in detecting nodal positive patients was tested by creating receiver-operating-characteristic curves (ROC) with a calculated area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated for all four modalities. A McNemar test was used to assess differences. Results: 112 female patients (mean age 53.04 ± 12.6 years) were evaluated. Thoracal PET/MRI showed the highest ROC-AUC with a value of 0.892. The AUC for breast MRI, thoracal MRI and sonography were 0.782, 0.814 and 0.834, respectively. Differences between thoracal PET/MRI and axillary sonography, thoracal MRI and breast MRI were statistically significant (PET/MRI vs. axillary sonography, P = 0.01; PET/MRI vs. thoracal MRI, P = 0.02; PET/MRI vs. breast MRI, P = 0.03). PET/MRI showed the highest sensitivity (81.8%, 36/44) (95%-CI: 67.29-91.81%) while axillary sonography had the highest specificity (98.5%, 65/66), 95%-CI: 91.84-99.96%). Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET/MRI outperforms axillary sonography, breast MRI and thoracal MRI in determining the axillary lymph node status. In a clinical setting, the combination of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and axillary sonography might be considered to provide even more accuracy in diagnosis.
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Armando E Giuliano; Mark R Somerfield; Al B Benson; Diane C Bodurka; Harold J Burstein; Alistair J Cochran; Hiram S Cody; Stephen B Edge; Sharon Galper; James A Hayman; Theodore Y Kim; Cheryl L Perkins; Donald A Podoloff; Visa Haran Sivasubramaniam; Roderick R Turner; Richard Wahl; Donald L Weaver; Antonio C Wolff; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Hartmut P Burmeister; Ramy Zoubi; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: T P J Farrell; N C Adams; M Stenson; P A Carroll; M Griffin; E M Connolly; S A O'Keeffe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: V J L Kuijs; M Moossdorff; R J Schipper; R G H Beets-Tan; E M Heuts; K B M I Keymeulen; M L Smidt; M B I Lobbes Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2015-03-24
Authors: Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; B Goorts; S Vöö; M de Boer; L F S Kooreman; E M Heuts; J E Wildberger; F M Mottaghy; M B I Lobbes; M L Smidt Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236