Improved breast cancer detection of prone breast fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in 118 patients

Nuclear Medicine Communications

Volumn 29, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 885-893

  Kaida, Hayato ^a   Ishibashi, Masatoshi ^a   Fuji, Teruhiko ^a   Kurata, Seiji ^a   Uchida, Masafumi ^a   Baba, Kenkichi ^a   Miyagawa, Teruo ^a   Kaibara, Hiroko ^a   Kawamura, Seiji ^a   Ogo, Etsuyo ^a   Hayabuchi, Naofumi ^a  

^a KURUME UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography; Prone breast positron emission tomography image; Whole body positron emission tomography image

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY POSTURE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DRUG UPTAKE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRONE BREAST POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUPINE POSITION; WHOLE BODY PET; BREAST TUMOR; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; SCINTISCANNING; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRONE POSITION; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; SUPINE POSITION; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 58749083728     PISSN: 01433636     EISSN: 14735628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32830439d9     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer Statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 2000; 50:7-33.
2. Barranger E, Grahek D, Antoine M, Montravers F, Talbot JN, Uzan S. Evaluation of fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography in the detection of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:622-627.
3. Czernin J. FDG-PET in breast cancer; a different view of its clinical usefulness. Mol Imaging Biol 2002; 4:35-42.
4. Moy L, Ponzo F, Noz ME, Maguire GQ, Murphy-Warcott AD, Deans AE, et al. Improving specificity of breast MRI using prone PET and fused MRI and PET 3D volume datasets. J Nucl Med 2007; 48:528-537.
5. Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Guhlmann A, Santjohanser C, Horster T, Nussle K, 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.
6. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Current and future uses of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004; 34:224-240.
7. Scheidhauer K, Walter C, Seemann MD. FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31 (S1):70-79.
8. Heinisch M, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, Krasnik E, Kumnig G, Gomez I, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of suggestive breast lesions. Breast 2003; 12:17-22.
9. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (‘positron emission mammography’) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006; 12:309-323.
10. Kuehl H, Veit P, Rosenbarum SJ, Bockisch A, Antoch G. Can PET/CT replace separate diagnostic CT for cancer imaging? Optimizing CT protocols for imaging cancers of the chest and abdomen. J Nucl Med 2007; 48 (S1):45-57.
11. Sobin LH, Wittekindt C; (International Union Against Cancer UICC), editors. TMN classification of malignant tumors. 6th ed. Baltimore, MD: Wiley-Liss; 2002. pp. 131-141.
12. Walter C, Scheidhauer K, Scharl A, Goering UJ, Theissen P, Kugel H, et al. Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:1651-1656.
13. Rieber A, Schirrmeister H, Gabelmann A, Nuessle K, Reske S, Kreienberg R, 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.
14. Khalkhali I, Mena I, Diggles L. Review of imaging techniques for the diagnosis of breast cancer: a new role of prone scintimammography using technetium-99m senstamibi. Eur J Nucl Med 1994; 21:357-362.
15. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. PET in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1998; 28:290-302.
16. Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler S, Dose J, Weber W, Laubenbacher C, et al. Breast imaging with fluorine-18 FDG PET; quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:1186-1191.
17. Lind P, Igerc I, Beyer T, Reinprecht P, Hausegger K. Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31 (S1):125-134.
18. Yutani K, Tatsumi M, Uehara T, Nishimura T. Effect of patients being prone during FDG PET for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173:1337-1339.
19. Benard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res 2005; 7:153-162.
20. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2005; 35:84-99.
21. Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Perrier ND, Morton K, Lesko NM, Bergman S, et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:86-91.
22. Quon A, Gambhir SS. FDG-PET and beyond: molecular breast cancer imaging. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:1664-1673.
23. 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; 234:527-534.
24. Nguyen BD, Lidner TK. Intraductal papiloma of the breast; F-18FDG PET demonstration. Clin Nucl Med 2005; 30:481-482.
25. Cook GJ, Wegner EA, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004; 34:122-133.
26. Adler LP, Crowe JP, al-Kaisi NK, Sunshine JL. Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [E-18]-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET. Radiology 1993; 187:743-750.
27. Avril N, Dose J, Janicke F, Bense S, Ziegler S, Laubenbacher C, et al. Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using [F-18]-flurodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:1848-1857.
28. Yutani K, Shiba E, Kusuoka H, Tatsumi M, Uehara T, Taguchi T, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET with MIBI-SPECT in the detection of breast cancer and axillary lymph node metastasis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000; 24:274-280.
29. Kumar R, Loving VA, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Mitchell S, Alavi A. Potential of dual-time-point imaging to improve breast cancer diagnosis with (18) F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:1819-1824.
30. 18F-FDG PET imaging detects breast cancer with high sensitivity and correlates well with histologic subtypes. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:1440-1446.