Rikako Hashimoto1, Sadako Akashi-Tanaka2, Chie Watanabe2, Hiroko Masuda2, Kanae Taruno2, Tomoko Takamaru2, Yoshimi Ide2, Takashi Kuwayama2, Yasuhiro Kobayashi3, Masafumi Takimoto4, Seigo Nakamura2. 1. Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Showa University School of Medicine, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa, Tokyo, 142-8666, Japan. rikarika10063@gmail.com. 2. Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Showa University School of Medicine, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa, Tokyo, 142-8666, Japan. 3. Tokyo Midtown Clinic, Midtown Tower 6F, Akasaka 9-7-1, Minato, Tokyo, 107-6206, Japan. 4. Department of Pathology, Showa University School of Medicine, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa, Tokyo, 142-8666, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) has been developed for detecting smaller breast cancer. We investigated the diagnostic performance of dbPET in patients with known breast cancer. METHODS: Eighty-two preoperative patients with breast cancer were included in the study (84 tumours: 11 ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS], 73 invasive cancers). They underwent mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (US), and contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before whole-body PET/MRI (WBPET/MRI) and dbPET. We evaluated the sensitivity of all modalities, and the association between the maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) level and histopathological features. RESULTS: The sensitivities of MMG, US, MRI, WBPET/MRI and dbPET for all tumours were 81.2% (65/80), 98.8% (83/84), 98.6% (73/74), 86.9% (73/84), and 89.2% (75/84), respectively. For 11 DCIS and 22 small invasive cancers (≤ 2 cm), the sensitivity of dbPET (84.9%) tended to be higher than that of WBPET/MRI (69.7%) (p = 0.095). Seven tumours were detected by dbPET only, but not by WBPET/MRI. Five tumours were detected by only WBPET/MRI because of the blind area of dbPET detector, requiring a wider field of view. After making the mat of dbPET detector thinner, all 22 scanned tumours were depicted. The higher SUVmax of dbPET was significantly related to the negative oestrogen receptor status, higher nuclear grade, and higher Ki67 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of dbPET for early breast cancer was higher than that of WBPET/MRI. High SUVmax was related to aggressive features of tumours. Moreover, dbPET can be used for the diagnosis and oncological evaluation of breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) has been developed for detecting smaller breast cancer. We investigated the diagnostic performance of dbPET in patients with known breast cancer. METHODS: Eighty-two preoperative patients with breast cancer were included in the study (84 tumours: 11 ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS], 73 invasive cancers). They underwent mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (US), and contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before whole-body PET/MRI (WBPET/MRI) and dbPET. We evaluated the sensitivity of all modalities, and the association between the maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) level and histopathological features. RESULTS: The sensitivities of MMG, US, MRI, WBPET/MRI and dbPET for all tumours were 81.2% (65/80), 98.8% (83/84), 98.6% (73/74), 86.9% (73/84), and 89.2% (75/84), respectively. For 11 DCIS and 22 small invasive cancers (≤ 2 cm), the sensitivity of dbPET (84.9%) tended to be higher than that of WBPET/MRI (69.7%) (p = 0.095). Seven tumours were detected by dbPET only, but not by WBPET/MRI. Five tumours were detected by only WBPET/MRI because of the blind area of dbPET detector, requiring a wider field of view. After making the mat of dbPET detector thinner, all 22 scanned tumours were depicted. The higher SUVmax of dbPET was significantly related to the negative oestrogen receptor status, higher nuclear grade, and higher Ki67 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of dbPET for early breast cancer was higher than that of WBPET/MRI. High SUVmax was related to aggressive features of tumours. Moreover, dbPET can be used for the diagnosis and oncological evaluation of breast cancer.
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
Authors: Ella F Jones; Kimberly M Ray; Wen Li; Youngho Seo; Benjamin L Franc; Amy J Chien; Laura J Esserman; Miguel H Pampaloni; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 3.225