Interpretation of positron emission mammography: Feature analysis and rates of malignancy

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 196, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 956-970

  Narayanan, Deepa ^a,b   Madsen, Kathleen S ^c   Kalinyak, Judith E ^a   Berg, Wendie A ^d,e  

^a Naviscan Inc   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c Certus International Inc   (United States)

^d American College of Radiology Imaging Network   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast imaging; FDG; Lexicon; Positron emission mammography

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER INVASION; CANCER MORPHOLOGY; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LOBULAR CARCINOMA IN SITU; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NOMENCLATURE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTION; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME; BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; SCINTISCANNING; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REFERENCE STANDARDS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 79957847396     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4748     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al. Highresolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006; 12:309-323
2. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS Mammography, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
3. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E. Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
4. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kuhl CK, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
5. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, et al. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI for presurgical planning of the ipsilateral breast in women with breast cancer. Radiology 2011; 258:59-72
6. Narayanan D, Berg WA, Kalinyak JE. Interpretation of positron emission mammography (PEM) by experienced breast imaging radiologists: comparison with MRI. AJR 2010; 196:971-981
7. Kalinyak JE, Schilling K, Berg WA, et al. PET-guided breast biopsy. Breast J 2011 [Epub 2011 Jan 31]
8. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG. Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. Radiology 2001; 219:484-494 (Pubitemid 32336366)
9. Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et al. Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclicalphase dependency. Radiology 1997; 203:137-144 (Pubitemid 27142721)
10. Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR 2006; 186:426-430 (Pubitemid 46100312)
11. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42:845-851, vi
12. Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Saini MH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. AJR 2009; 193:861-867
13. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468
14. Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994; 192:439-442 (Pubitemid 24233923)
15. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR 2002; 179:691-695 (Pubitemid 34919583)
16. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219:475-483 (Pubitemid 32336365)
17. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:123-134
18. 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 1998; 171:35-40 (Pubitemid 28308645)
19. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BIRADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR 2005; 184:1260-1265
20. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2005; 11:382-390 (Pubitemid 41743410)
21. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, et al. Comparison of MRI features of different grades of DCIS and invasive carcinoma of the breast. JBR-BTR 2005; 88:225-232 (Pubitemid 41639589)
22. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Leutner C, Schild H, Traeber F, Kuhl C. Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:2010-2017 (Pubitemid 41222910)
23. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, et al. MR mammography is useful in the preoperative locoregional staging of breast carcinomas with extensive intraductal component. Eur J Radiol 2007; 62:273-282 (Pubitemid 46560342)
24. Alibazoglu H, Megremis D, Ali A, LaMonica G. Injection artifact on FDG PET imaging. Clin Nucl Med 1998; 23:264-265 (Pubitemid 28158126)
25. Langen KJ, Braun U, Rota Kops E, et al. The influence of plasma glucose levels on fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in bronchial carcinomas. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:355-359 (Pubitemid 23075371)
26. Diederichs CG, Staib L, Glatting G, Beger HG, Reske SN. FDG PET: elevated plasma glucose reduces both uptake and detection rate of pancreatic malignancies. J Nucl Med 1998; 39:1030-1033 (Pubitemid 28270121)
27. 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:885-895