The current status of positron emission mammography in breast cancer diagnosis

Breast Cancer

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 123-130

  Kalles, Vasileios ^a,c   Zografos, George C ^a   Provatopoulou, Xeni ^b   Koulocheri, Dimitra ^a   Gounaris, Antonia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

^b Hellenic Anticancer Institute   (Greece)

^c NONE   (Greece)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; PET CT; Positron emission mammography; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

BREAST TUMOR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS;

EID: 84884742209     PISSN: 13406868     EISSN: 18804233     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-012-0433-3     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. DeSantis C, Siegel R, Bandi P, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2011. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;61:409-18.
2. Moadel RM. Breast cancer imaging devices. Semin Nucl Med. 2011;41:229-41.
3. Halladay JR, Yankaskas BC, Bowling JM, Alexander C. Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:782-5.
4. Berg WA, Blume JD, Adams AM, Jong RA, Barr RG, Lehrer DE, et al. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010;254:79-87.
5. Jackson VP, Hendrick RE, Feig SA, Kopans DB. Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. Radiology. 1993;188:297-301. (Pubitemid 23216242)
6. Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Boetes C, Loo CE, et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5265-73.
7. Bartella L, Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Nonpalpable mammographically occult invasive breast cancers detected by MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:865-70. (Pubitemid 46100279)
8. Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ, Cruz-Jove E, Putt ME, Solin LJ, et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology. 2003;226:773-8. (Pubitemid 36259154)
9. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1295-303. (Pubitemid 46513295)
10. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901-10. (Pubitemid 36363023)
11. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord SJ, Warren RM, Dixon JM, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3248-58.
12. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, Boughey JC, Loprinzi C, Grant CS, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082-8.
13. Pettit K, Swatske ME, Gao F, Salavaggione L, Gillanders WE, Aft RL, et al. The impact of breast MRI on surgical decision-making: are patients at risk for mastectomy? J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:553-8.
14. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, Sesa L, Evers K, Sigurdson ER, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:180-7. quiz 294-5.
15. Angarita FA, Acuna SA, Fonseca A, Crystal P, Escallon J. Impact of preoperative breast MRIs on timing of surgery and type of intervention in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):273-9.
16. Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E. MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet. 2011;378:1804-11.
17. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480-508. (Pubitemid 351355215)
18. Vallabhajosula S, Solnes L, Vallabhajosula B. A broad overview of positron emission tomography radiopharmaceuticals and clinical applications: what is new? Semin Nucl Med. 2011;41:246-64.
19. Lavayssiere R, Cabee AE, Filmont JE. Positron emission tomography (PET) and breast cancer in clinical practice. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:50-8.
20. Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE, The J, Velasquez MV, Kahn S, et al. Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:23-36.
21. Weinberg IN. Applications for positron emission mammography. Phys Med. 2006;21(Suppl 1):132-7. (Pubitemid 46624899)
22. Segaert I, Mottaghy F, Ceyssens S, De Wever W, Stroobants S, Van Ongeval C, et al. Additional value of PET-CT in staging of clinical stage IIB and III breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16:617-24.
23. Avril N, Adler LP. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging for primary breast cancer and loco-regional staging. Radiol Clin N Am. 2007;45:645-57. vi. (Pubitemid 47238389)
24. 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 fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1848-57. (Pubitemid 26185460)
25. Heinisch M, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, Kresnik 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. (Pubitemid 36395482)
26. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3495-502.
27. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology. 2007;242:360-85. (Pubitemid 46150968)
28. Townsend DW, Beyer T, Blodgett TM. PET/CT scanners: a hardware approach to image fusion. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:193-204. (Pubitemid 36859498)
29. Tsujikawa T, Tsuchida T, Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kiyono Y, Okazawa H, et al. Role of PET/CT in gynecological tumors based on the revised FIGO staging classification. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:e114-8.
30. Ozkan E, Soydal C, Araz M, Kir KM, Ibis E. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting colorectal cancer recurrence in patients with elevated CEA levels. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:395-402.
31. Christensen JA, Nathan MA, Mullan BP, Hartman TE, Swensen SJ, Lowe VJ. Characterization of the solitary pulmonary nodule: 18F-FDG PET versus nodule-enhancement CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1361-7. (Pubitemid 44630846)
32. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA. 2007;298:2289-95. (Pubitemid 350146219)
33. Cooper KL, Harnan S, Meng Y, Ward SE, Fitzgerald P, Papaioannou D, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) for assessment of axillary lymph node status in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:187-98.
34. Bernsdorf M, Berthelsen AK, Wielenga VT, Kroman N, Teilum D, Binderup T, et al. Preoperative PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2277-82.
35. Garami Z, Hascsi Z, Varga J, Dinya T, Tanyi M, Garai I, et al. The value of 18-FDG PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer compared to traditional diagnostic modalities with an emphasis on changes in disease stage designation and treatment plan. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:31-7.
36. Alberini JL, Lerebours F, Wartski M, Fourme E, Le Stanc E, Gontier E, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) imaging in the staging and prognosis of inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:5038-47.
37. Walker GV, Niikura N, Yang W, Rohren E, Valero V, Woodward WA, et al. Pretreatment staging positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with inflammatory breast cancer influences radiation treatment field designs. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1381-6.
38. Yang WT. Advances in imaging of inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:2755-7.
39. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, Ferrer L, Bridji B, Campion L, 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;24:5366-72. (Pubitemid 46623167)
40. Ueda S, Saeki T, Shigekawa T, Omata J, Moriya T, Yamamoto J, et al. (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography optimizes neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer to achieve pathological complete response. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17:276-82.
41. Keam B, Im SA, Koh Y, Han SW, Oh DY, Cho N, et al. Early metabolic response using FDG PET/CT and molecular phenotypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:452.
42. Park JS, Moon WK, Lyou CY, Cho N, Kang KW, Chung JK. The assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Acta Radiol. 2011;52:21-8.
43. 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;107:2545-51. (Pubitemid 44845606)
44. Eubank WB, Mankoff D, Bhattacharya M, Gralow J, Linden H, Ellis G, 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;183:479-86. (Pubitemid 38970344)
45. Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK, Kaim AH, Steinert HC, Seifert B, et al. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1635-44. (Pubitemid 36869357)
46. Grahek D, Montravers F, Kerrou K, Aide N, Lotz JP, Talbot JN. [18F]FDG in recurrent breast cancer: diagnostic performances, clinical impact and relevance of induced changes in management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:179-88. (Pubitemid 38173692)
47. Constantinidou A, Martin A, Sharma B, Johnston SR. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of recurrent/metastatic breast cancer: a large retrospective study from the Royal Marsden Hospital. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:307-14.
48. Pennant M, Takwoingi Y, Pennant L, Davenport C, Fry-Smith A, Eisinga A, et al. A systematic review of positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:1-103.
49. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology™. Breast Cancer V.2.2011.
50. Thompson CJ, Murthy K, Weinberg IN, Mako F. Feasibility study for positron emission mammography. Med Phys. 1994;21:529-38. (Pubitemid 24129931)
51. Weinberg I, Majewski S, Weisenberger A, Markowitz A, Aloj L, Majewski L, et al. Preliminary results for positron emission mammography: real-time functional breast imaging in a conventional mammography gantry. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23:804-6. (Pubitemid 26237875)
52. 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;41:1851-8.
53. 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.
54. 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;234:527-34. (Pubitemid 40139925)
55. Tafra L, Cheng Z, Uddo J, Lobrano MB, Stein W, Berg WA, et al. Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2005;190:628-32. (Pubitemid 41306092)
56. 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;12:309-23. (Pubitemid 43989975)
57. Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, Kang KW, Lee SM, Han W, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast. 2012;21:66-71.
58. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol. 1997;24:94-108. (Pubitemid 27165349)
59. Degani H, Chetrit-Dadiani M, Bogin L, Furman-Haran E. Magnetic resonance imaging of tumor vasculature. Thromb Haemost. 2003;89:25-33. (Pubitemid 36149789)
60. Tafra L. Positron emission mammography: a new breast imaging device. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:372-3. (Pubitemid 351466374)
61. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, 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.
62. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:219-32.
63. Kalinyak JE, Schilling K, Berg WA, Narayanan D, Mayberry JP, Rai R, et al. PET-guided breast biopsy. Breast J. 2011;17:143-51.
64. 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;50:1666-75.
65. Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, Quon A, Villalpando J, Dahlbom M, et al. Relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1238-42. (Pubitemid 39655183)
66. Swedish Medical Center. Clinical value of pre-surgery positron emission mammography (PEM) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine (US); 2000. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01241721. NLM Identifier: NCT01241721.
67. The University of Chicago Medical Center. Role of PEM Flex Solo II PET Scanner in evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in patients with breast cancer. In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine (US); 2000. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01012440. NLM Identifier: NCT01012440.
68. Boston Medical Center. Positron emission mammography and standard mammography in women with dense breast tissue or who are at high risk of breast cancer. In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine (US); 2000. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00896649. NLM Identifier: NCT00896649.
69. Rice SL, Roney CA, Daumar P, Lewis JS. The next generation of positron emission tomography radiopharmaceuticals in oncology. Semin Nucl Med. 2011;41:265-82.
70. Vandromme MJ, Umphrey H, Krontiras H. Image-guided methods for biopsy of suspicious breast lesions. J Surg Oncol. 2011;103:299-305.
71. Han BK, Schnall MD, Orel SG, Rosen M. Outcome of MRI-guided breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1798-804.
72. Schell AM, Rosenkranz K, Lewis PJ. Role of breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1438-44.
73. Raylman RR, Majewski S, Weisenberger AG, Popov V, Wojcik R, Kross B, et al. Positron emission mammography-guided breast biopsy. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:960-6. (Pubitemid 32537446)
74. Issa N, Poggio ED, Fatica RA, Patel R, Ruggieri PM, Heyka RJ. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and its association with gadolinium exposure during MRI. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75:95-7. 103-4, 6 passim.
75. Shellock FG, Spinazzi A. MRI safety update 2008: part 1, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1129-39.