Positron emission mammography: Correlation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and 18F-FDG

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 197, Issue 2, 2011, Pages

  Wang, Carolyn L ^a,b   MacDonald, Lawrence R ^b   Rogers, James V ^a   Aravkin, Aleksandr ^b   Haseley, David R ^a   Beatty, J David ^a  

^a SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

18F FDG PET CT; Breast cancer; Hormone receptors; Positron emission mammography

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; LUNG CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; POSITRON EMISSION MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RECEPTORS, PROGESTERONE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 79960746887     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6478     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Buck AK, Herrmann K, Stargardt T, Dechow T, Krause BJ, Schreyögg J. Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J Nucl Med Technol 2010; 38:6-17
2. Rosen EL, Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radio-Graphics 2007; 27(suppl 1):S215-S229
3. Thompson CJ, Murthy K, Weinberg IN, Mako F. Feasibility study for positron emission mammography. Med Phys 1994; 21:529-538 (Pubitemid 24129931)
4. Wang GC, Huber JS, Moses WW, et al. Characterization of the LBNL PEM camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2006; 53:1129-1135 (Pubitemid 44109405)
5. Raylman RR, Majewski S, Smith MF, et al. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53:637-653 (Pubitemid 351496210)
6. Bowen SL, Wu Y, Chaudhari AJ, et al. Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1401-1408
7. Abreu MC, Aguiar JD, Almeida FG, et al. Design and evaluation of the clear-PEM scanner for positron emission mammography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2006; 53:71-77
8. Murthy K, Aznar M, Thompson C, Loutfi A, Lisbona R, Gagnon J. 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
9. Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Perrier ND, et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:86-91
10. 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 (Pubitemid 40139925)
11. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg 2005; 190:628-632
12. 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; 12:309-323 (Pubitemid 43989975)
13. Henson DE, Riess LA. Progress in early breast cancer detection. Cancer 1990; 65:2155-2158 (Pubitemid 20140915)
14. Soerjomataram I, Louwman MW, Ribot JG, Roukema JA, Coebergh JW. An overview of prognostic factors for long-term survivors of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 107:309-330 (Pubitemid 351172108)
15. Pritchard KI, Shepherd LE, O'Malley FP, et al. HER2 and responsiveness of breast cancer to adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2103-2111 (Pubitemid 43736610)
16. Precht LM, Lowe KA, Atwood M, Beatty JD. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer: tumor markers as predictors of pathologic response, recurrence, and survival. Breast J 2010; 16:362-368
17. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A III, eds. AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2010
18. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kühn T, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:1317-1323 (Pubitemid 44392212)
19. Buck AK, Schirrmeister H, Mattfeldt T, Reske SN. Biological characterisation of breast cancer by means of PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31(suppl 1):S80-S87 (Pubitemid 38833036)
20. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and postoperative histopathology, hormone receptor status, thymidine labelling index and p53 in primary breast cancer: a preliminary observation. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25:1429-1434
21. 18F-FDG PET: histological and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:9-16
22. 18F-FDG uptake of primary breast cancer lesions. J Nucl Med 2007; 48:1266-1272
23. Ikenaga N, Otomo N, Toyofuku A, et al. Standardized uptake values for breast carcinomas assessed by fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography correlate with prognostic factors. Am Surg 2007; 73:1151-1157 (Pubitemid 351396527)
24. 18F-FDG PET/CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008; 38:250-258
25. 18F-FDG PET of locally invasive breast cancer and association of estrogen receptor status with standardized uptake value: microarray and immunohistochemical analysis. J Nucl Med 2010; 51:543-550
26. Ellis IO, Elston CW. Histologic grade. In O'Malley FP, Pinder SE, eds. Breast pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2006:225-233
27. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:1474-1481 (Pubitemid 29220854)
28. Mohsin SK, Weiss H, Havighurst T, et al. Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry and clinical outcome in breast cancer: a validation study. Mod Pathol 2004; 17:1545-1554 (Pubitemid 39627082)
29. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:118-145 (Pubitemid 350003059)
30. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Triple-negative/basal-like breast cancer: review. Pathology 2009; 41:40-47
31. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, et al. Correlation of high (18)F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38:426-435
32. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, et al. Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/ progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/ positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer 2008; 112:995-1000 (Pubitemid 351304582)
33. Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, Caggiano V. Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999-2004. Breast J 2009; 15: 593-602
34. Irvin WJ Jr, Carey LA. What is triple-negative breast cancer? Eur J Cancer 2008; 44:2799-2805
35. Straver ME, Aukema TS, Olmos RA, et al. Feasibility of FDG PET/CT to monitor the response of axillary lymph node metastases to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37:1069-1076
36. Heinisch M, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of suggestive breast lesions. Breast 2003; 12:17-22 (Pubitemid 36395482)
37. 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; 9:773-783 (Pubitemid 34761360)
38. 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; 98:267-274 (Pubitemid 44195596)
39. MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1666-1675
40. Berg WA, Blume JD, Adams AM, et al. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology 2010; 254:79-87
41. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology 2011; 258:59-72