Background parenchymal uptake during molecular breast imaging and associated clinical factors

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 204, Issue 3, 2015, Pages W363-W370

  Hruska, Carrie B ^a   Rhodes, Deborah J ^a   Conners, Amy Lynn ^a   Jones, Katie N ^a   Carter, Rickey E ^a   Lingineni, Ravi K ^a   Vachon, Celine M ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast density; Hormone therapy; Menstrual cycle; Molecular breast imaging; MRI

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BACKGROUND PARENCHYMAL UPTAKE; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST EXAMINATION; CLIMACTERIUM; CONFERENCE PAPER; FEMALE; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MOLECULAR BREAST IMAGING; MOLECULAR IMAGING; PREMENOPAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; ABNORMALITIES; BREAST TUMOR; MAMMARY GLAND; PATHOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCINTISCANNING;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; MOLECULAR IMAGING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84932604336     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12979     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that infuence them: an analysis of 27, 825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:165-175
2. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1081-1087
3. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:168-175
4. Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, et al. Mam-mographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res 2007; 9:217
5. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006; 15:1159-1169
6. National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium website. breastscreening.can-cer.gov/data. Accessed October 10, 2014
7. Sickles, EA, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Res-ton, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
8. Morris EA. Diagnostic Breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:863-880
9. Hansen NL, Kuhl CK, Barabasch A, Strobel K, Schrading S. Does MRI breast "density" (degree of background enhancement) correlate with mam-mographic breast density? J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40: 483-439
10. King V, Brooks JD, Bernstein JL, Reiner AS, Pike MC, Morris EA. Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk. Radiology 2011; 260:50-60
11. King V, Gu Y, Kaplan JB, Brooks JD, Pike MC, Morris EA. Impact of menopausal status on background parenchymal enhancement and fbroglan-dular tissue on breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:2641-2647
12. Hegenscheid K, Schmidt C, Seipel R, et al. Contrast enhancement kinetics of normal breast parenchyma in dynamic MR mammography: effects of menopausal status, oral contraceptives, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:2633-2640
13. Delille J P, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED, Kopans DB, Halp-ern EF, Garrido L. Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women: breast tissue per-fusion determined with MR imaging-initial observations. Radiology 2005; 235:36-41
14. 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 cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 1997; 203:137-144
15. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O'Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology 2011; 258:106-118
16. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Conners AL, et al. Molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts. AJR 2015; 204:1-12
17. Conners AL, Maxwell RW, Tortorelli CL, et al. Gamma camera breast imaging lexicon. AJR 2012; 199:[web]W767-W774
18. Conners AL, Hruska CB, Tortorelli CL, et al. Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39:971-982
19. Koo HR, Moon WK, Chun IK, et al. Background 18F-FDG uptake in positron emission mammog-raphy (PEM): correlation with mammographic density and background parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:1738-1742
20. 99mTc-Sestamibi uptake and radiographic breast density. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2005; 4:265-273
21. Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V. Breast-specifc gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 2008; 247:651-657
22. Hruska CB, Conners AL, Jones KN, Rhodes DJ, O'Connor MK, Vachon CM. Background paren-chymal uptake of Tc-99m sestamibi on molecular breast imaging in mammographically dense breasts. (abstract). RSNA 2013. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America, 2013. rsna2013.rsna.org/program/?page=1. Accessed October 10, 2014
23. Vachon CM, Fowler EE, Tiffenberg G, et al. Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-feld digital mammography data. Breast Cancer Res 2013; 15:R1
24. Bertrand KA, Tamimi RM, Scott CG, et al. Mam-mographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. Breast Cancer Res 2013; 15:R104
25. Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, et al. Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Bio-markers Prev 2007; 16:921-928
26. Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K, et al. Mam-mographic breast density as a general marker of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16:43-49
27. Heine JJ, Scott CG, Sellers TA, et al. A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104:1028-1037
28. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174
29. Reeves GK, Pirie K, Beral V, Green J, Spencer E, Bull D. Cancer incidence and mortality in relation to body mass index in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 2007; 335:1134
30. Vachon CM, Sellers TA, Vierkant RA, Wu FF, Brandt KR. Case-control study of increased mammographic breast density response to hormone replacement therapy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002; 11:1382-1388
31. Hruska CB, Rhodes DJ, Collins DA, O'Connor MK. Variation in Tc-99m sestamibi background parenchymal uptake with menstrual cycle in pre-menopausal women undergoing molecular breast imaging. (abstract) J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 668
32. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007; 244:356-378
33. Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, et al. [Tc-99m]-sestamibi uptake and washout in locally advanced breast cancer are correlated with tumor blood fow. Nucl Med Biol 2002; 29:719-727
34. Delmon-Moingeon LI, Piwnica-Worms D, Van den Abbeele AD, Holman BL, Davison A, Jones AG. Uptake of the cation hexakis(2-methoxyisobutylisonitrile)-technetium-99m by human carcinoma cell lines in vitro. Cancer Res 1990; 50:2198-2202
35. Scopinaro F, Schillaci O, Scarpini M, et al. Techne-tium-99m sestamibi: an indicator of breast cancer invasiveness. Eur J Nucl Med 1994; 21:984-987
36. Knopp M V, Weiss E, Sinn H P, et al. Pathophysio-logic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10:260-266
37. Kim MY, Choi N, Ko SM, Chung HW. Background uptake of breast-specifc gamma imaging: correlation with mammographic breast density and background enhancement of breast MRI. Clin Imaging 2014; 38:255-258
38. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:75-89
39. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR 2009; 192:390-399
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. Hruska CB, Weinmann AL, Tello Skjerseth CM, et al. Proof of concept for low-dose molecular breast imaging with a dual-head CZT gamma camera. Part 2. Evaluation in patients. Med Phys 2012; 39:3476-3483
42. Ginsburg OM, Martin LJ, Boyd NF. Mammo-graphic density, lobular involution, and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2008; 99:1369-1374
43. Li T, Sun L, Miller N, et al. The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with mam-mographic density and other risk factors for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14:343-349
44. Ghosh K, Hartmann LC, Reynolds C, et al. Association between mammographic density and age-related lobular involution of the breast. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:2207-2212