FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging

Radiographics

Volumn 27, Issue SPEC. ISS., 2007, Pages

  Rosen, Eric L ^a   Eubank, William B ^a   Mankoff, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

BREAST TUMOR; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; PATHOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SCINTISCANNING;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 36148931885     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.27si075517     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA, Schmiedl UP, et al. Imaging of oncologic patients: benefit of combined CT and FDG PET in the diagnosis of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171(4):1103-1110.
2. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(3):254-262.
3. Fueger BJ, Weber WA, Quon A, et al. Performance of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and integrated PET/CT in restaged breast cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 2005;7(5):369-376.
4. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;98(3):267-274.
5. 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(7):773-783.
6. Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. Positron emission mammography (PEM) evaluation of nonpalpable imaging detected breast lesions [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill:Radiological Society of North America, 2006; 485.
7. Murthy K, Aznar M, Thompson CJ, Loutfi A, Usbona 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(11):1851-1858.
8. Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS, Baker JA, Coleman RE. Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience. Radiology 2005;234(2):527-534.
9. Tafra L, Cheng Z, Uddo J, et al. Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg 2005; 190(4):628-632.
10. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006;12(4):309-323.
11. Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Perrier ND, et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10(1):86-91.
12. Murthy K, Aznar M, Bergman AM, et al. Positron emission mammographic instrument: initial results. Radiology 2000;215(1):280-285.
13. Utech CI, Young CS, Winter PF. Prospective evaluation of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer for staging of the axilla related to surgery and immunocytochemistry. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23(12):1588-1593.
14. Avril N, Dose J, Jänicke F, et al. Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol 1996;14(6):1848-1857.
15. Wahl RL, Siegel BA, Coleman RE, Gatsonis CG; PET Study Group. Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the Staging Breast Cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(2):277-285.
16. Barranger E, Grahek D, Antoine M, Montravers F, Talbot JN, Uzan S. Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10(6):622-627.
17. Fehr MK, Hornung R, Varga Z, et al. Axillary staging using positron emission tomography in breast cancer patients qualifying for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast J 2004;10(2):89-93.
18. Gil-Rendo A, Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Regueira FM, Beorlegui C, Cervera M. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with sentinel lymph node biopsy for evaluation of axillary involvement in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2006;93(6):707-712.
19. Kumar R, Zhuang H, Schnall M, et al. FDG PET positive lymph nodes are highly predictive of metastasis in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2006;27(3):231-236.
20. Lovrics PJ, Chen V, Coates G, et al. A prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography scanning, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and standard axillary dissection for axillary staging in patients with early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11(9):846-853.
21. van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Comans EF, et al. Determinants of diagnostic performance of [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for axillary staging in breast cancer. Ann Surg 2002;236(5):619-624.
22. Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Sola J, Regueira FM, Pina L, Beorlegui C. 18F-FDG PET complemented with sentinel lymph node biopsy in the detection of axillary involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004;30(1):15-19.
23. Eubank WB, Mankoff D, Bhattacharya M, et al. Impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183(2):479-486.
24. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Current and future uses of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34(3):224-240.
25. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2005;35(2):84-99.
26. Bellon JR, Livingston RB, Eubank WB, et al. Evaluation of the internal mammary lymph nodes by FDG-PET in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). Am J Clin Oncol 2004;27(4):407-410.
27. Danforth DN, Aloj L, Carrasquillo JA, et al. The role of 18F-FDG-PET in the local/regional evaluation of women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;75(2):135-146.
28. Aboagye EO, Price PM. Use of positron emission tomography in anticancer drug development. Invest New Drugs 2003;21(2):169-181.
29. Kamel EM, Wyss MT, Fehr MK, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with suspected recurrence of breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2003;129(3):147-153.
30. Moon DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DH, Glaspy JA, Phelps ME, Hoh CK. Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1998;39(3):431-435.
31. Tran A, Pio BS, Khatibi B, Czemin J, Phelps ME, Silverman DH. 18F-FDG PET for staging breast cancer in patients with inner-quadrant versus outer-quadrant tumors: comparison with long-term clinical outcome. J Nucl Med 2005;46(9):1455-1459.
32. Vranjesevic D, Filmont JE, Meta J, et al. Wholebody (18)F-FDG PET and conventional imaging for predicting outcome in previously treated breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2002;43(3):325-329.
33. Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 1998;16(10):3375-3379.
34. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G, et al. Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45(2):272-278.
35. Isasi CR, Moadel RM, Blaufox MD. A meta-analysis of FDG-PET for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;90(2):105-112.
36. Kim TS, Moon WK, Lee DS, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. World J Surg 2001;25(7):829-834.
37. Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(11):1253-1258.
38. Radan L, Ben-Haim S, Bar-Shalom R, Guralnik L, Israel O. The role of FDG-PET/CT in suspected recurrence of breast cancer. Cancer 2006;107(11):2545- 2551.
39. Feldman LD, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Ames FC, Blumenschein GR. Pathological assessment of response to induction chemotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Res 1986;46(5):2578-2581.
40. Machiavelli MR, Romero AO, Pérez JE, et al. Prognostic significance of pathological response of primary tumor and metastatic axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer J Sci Am 1998;4(2):125-131.
41. McCready DR, Hortobagyi GN, Kau SW, Smith TL, Buzdar AU, Balch CM. The prognostic significance of lymph node metastases after preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Arch Surg 1989;124(1):21-25.
42. Valagussa P, Zambetti M, Bonadonna G, Zucali R, Mezzanotte G, Veronesi U. Prognostic factors in locally advanced noninflammatory breast cancer: long-term results following primary chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1990;15(3):137-147.
43. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: 9-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001;30:96-102.
44. Bassa P, Kim EE, Inoue T, et al. Evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy using PET with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1996;37(6):931-938.
45. Burcombe RJ, Makris A, Pittam M, Lowe J, Emmott J, Wong WL. Evaluation of good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Cancer 2002;38(3):375-379.
46. Kim SJ, Kim SK, Lee ES, Ro J, Kang S. Predictive value of [18F]FDG PET for pathological response of breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2004;15(9):1352-1357.
47. Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK. Changes in glucose metabolism and blood flow following chemotherapy for breast cancer. PET Clin North Am 2005 (in press).
48. Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, et al. Blood flow and metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer: relationship to response to therapy. J Nucl Med 2002;43(4):500-509.
49. Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Drucker MJ, Livingston RB. Monitoring the response of patients with locally advanced breast carcinoma to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using [technetium-99m]-sestamibi scintimammography. Cancer 1999;85(11):2410-2423.
50. Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, et al. Changes in blood flow and metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Nucl Med 2003;44(11):1806-1814.
51. Mankoff DA, Muzi M, Krohn KA. Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: what is the best method? Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5(5):281-285.
52. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(34):5366-5372.
53. Schelling M, Avril N, Nährig J, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(8):1689-1695.
54. Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(8):1676-1688.
55. Smith TA. FDG uptake, tumour characteristics and response to therapy: a review. Nucl Med Commun 1998;19(2):97-105.
56. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol 1993;11(11):2101-2111.
57. Mankoff DA, Eubank WB. Current and future use of positron emission tomography (PET) in breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2006;11(2):125-136.
58. Chen X, Moore MO, Lehman CD, et al. Combined use of MRI and PET to monitor response and assess residual disease for locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acad Radiol 2004;11(10):1115-1124.
59. Gennari A, Donati S, Salvadori B, et al. Role of 2-[18F]- fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the early assessment of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin Breast Cancer 2000;1(2):156-161; discussion 162-163.
60. Dose Schwarz J, Bader M, Jenicke L, Hemminger G, Jänicke F, Avril N. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential F18-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2005;46(7):1144-1150.
61. Cachin F, Prince HM, Hogg A, Ware RE, Hicks RJ. Powerful prognostic stratification by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with high-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(19):3026-3031.
62. Schneider JA, Divgi CR, Scott AM, et al. Flare on bone scintigraphy following Taxol chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1994;35(11):1748-1752.
63. Stafford SE, Gralow JR, Schubert EK, et al. Use of serial FDG PET to measure the response of bone-dominant breast cancer to therapy. Acad Radiol 2002;9(8):913-921.
64. Specht JM, Tam SL, Kurland BF, et al. Serial 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D- glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to monitor treatment of bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer predicts time to progression (TTP). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007 Feb 1; [Epub ahead of print].
65. Linden HM, Stekhova SA, Link JM, et al. Quantitative fiuoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(18):2793-2799.
66. Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Trinkaus K, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ. Metabolic flare: indicator of hormone responsiveness in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(11):2797-2803.