Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: Initial experience

Radiology

Volumn 234, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 527-534

  Rosen, Eric L ^a   Turkington, Timothy G ^a   Soo, Mary Scott ^a   Baker, Jay A ^a   Coleman, R Edward ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 12344265712     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2342040654     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Wahl R. Current status of PET in breast cancer imaging, staging, and therapy. Semin Roentgenol 2001; 36:250-260.
2. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by F-18-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:9-16.
3. Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler SI, et al. Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:1186-1191.
4. Bos R, van der Hoeven JJ, van der Wall E, et al. Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:379-387.
5. Krak NC, van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, van der Wall E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:674-681.
6. Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Guhlmann A, et al. Fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with the standard staging procedures. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28:351-358.
7. Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK, et al. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:1635-1644.
8. Rieber A, Schirrmeister H, Gabelmann A, et al. Pre-operative staging of invasive breast cancer with MR mammography and/or PET: boon or bunk? Br J Radiol 2002; 75:789-798.
9. Raylman RR, Majewski S, Smith MF, et al. Comparison of scintillators for positron emission mammography (PEM) systems. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2003; 50:42-49.
10. Murthy K, Aznar M, Thompson CJ, Loutfi A, Lisbona R, Gagnon JH. Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1851-1858.
11. Murthy K, Jolly D, Aznar M, et al. Quantification in positron emission mammography (PEM) with planar detectors: contrast resolution measurements using a custom breast phantom and novel spherical hot-spots. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1999; 46:2192-2196.
12. Levine EA, Fremanis R, Ferner ND, et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:86-91.
13. Smith MF, Majewski S, Weisenberger AG, Kieper D, Kalen JD, Fatouros PP. Aspects of 3-D imaging by classical tomography for dual detector PEM. Presented at the Sixth International Meeting on Fully Three-dimensional Image Reconstruction in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Pacific Grove, Calif, October 30-November 2, 2001.
14. Freifelder R, Karp JS. Dedicated PET scanners for breast imaging. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42:2463-2480.
15. Liberman L, Menell JH. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40:409-430.
16. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:35-40.
17. Turkington TG, Majewski S, Weisenberger AG, et al. A large field of view position emission mammography imager. In: Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record 2002 IEEE. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2002; 1883-1886.
18. Smith MF, Majewski S, Weisenberger AG, Kieper DA, Raylman RR, Turkington TG. Analysis of factors affecting position emission mammography (PEM) image formation. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2003; 50:53-59.
19. Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Pisano ED, Aronson N. Should FDG PET be used to decide whether a patient with an abnormal mammogram or breast finding at physical examination should undergo biopsy? Acad Radiol 2002; 9:773-798.