Diagnostic Accuracy of Positron Emission Mammography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in Breast Cancer Tumor of Less than 20 mm in Size

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Nuclear Medicine and Tracer Kinetics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine

2 Sendai Medical Imaging Clinic (Gazo Kenshin)

3 Department of Breast Surgery, Tohoku Kosai Hospital

4 Department of Radiological and Medical Laboratory Sciences, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan

5 Institute for Materials Research, Tohoku University

6 Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine

Abstract

Objective(s): To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of positron emission mammography (PEM) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for small breast tumors of less than 20 mm in size.
Methods: The study was conducted on a total of 100 subjects (i.e., 50 patients with pathologically proven breast cancer and 50 normal cases of medical screening). The total number of tumors was 54 (mean size: 11±5.1 mm, range:
4-20 mm). The diagnostic accuracy of PEM alone, PET/CT alone, and combined PET/CT and PEM was evaluated by two nuclear medicine physicians based on visual inspection. The two groups (i.e., tumors of ≤ 10 mm and > 10-20 mm) were
compared in terms of the diagnostic capability of the three modalities (PEM alone, PET/CT alone, and PET/CT+PEM).
Results: The sensitivities of PEM alone, PET/CT alone, and combined PET/CT and PEM were 72%, 60%, and 76%, respectively. The specificities of these tests were 98%, 100%, and 98%, respectively. Furthermore, the accuracies of these diagnostic modalities were 85%, 79%, and 87%, respectively. The combined PET/CT and PEM showed significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy than PET/CT alone (P=0.005 and P=0.02, respectively). In addition, PEM demonstrated a
significantly higher sensitivity than PET/CT in the ≤ 10 mm group (P=0.03); however, no difference was observed between the two modalities in the > 10 mm group in terms of sensitivity.
Conclusion: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET had limited capability for the detection of small breast cancers of < 10 mm. Combined PET/CT and PEM showed higher sensitivity and accuracy, compared to PET/CT alone.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Jadvar H, Alavi A, Gambhir SS. 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(11):1820-7.
2. Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266(2):388-405.
3. Inoue T, Yutani K, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Shiba E, Noguchi S. Preoperative evaluation of prognosis in breast cancer patients by [(18)F]2Deoxy-2-fluoroD-glucose-positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004;130(5):273-8.
4. Jo JE, Kim JY, Lee SH, Kim S, Kang T. Preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts disease-free survival in patients with primary invasive ductal breast cancer. Acta Radiol. 2015;56(12):1463-70.
5. Ohara M, Shigematsu H, Tsutani Y, Emi A, Masumoto N, Ozaki S, et al. Role of FDG-PET/CT in evaluating surgical outcomes of operable breast cancer: usefulness for malignant grade of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast. 2013;22(5):958-63.
6. Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, Madsen KS, Narayanan D, Tartar M. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(2):260-75.
7. 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(20):3495- 502.
8. 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(4):309-23.
9. 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(10):1666-75.
10. Teixeira SC, Rebolleda JF, Koolen BB, Wesseling J, Jurado RS, Stokkel MP, et al. Evaluation of a hanging-breast PET system for primary tumor visualization in patients with stage I–III breast cancer: comparison with standard PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(6):1307-14.
11. Abreu MC, Almeida P, Balau F, Ferreira NC, Fetal S, Fraga F, et al. Clear-PEM: a dedicated PET camera for improved breast cancer detection. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;116(1-4 Pt 2):208-10.
12. Yamamoto Y, Ozawa Y, Kubouchi K, Nakamura S, Nakajima Y, Inoue T. Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(1):21-5.
13. 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(1):66-71.
14. Caldarella C, Treglia G, Giordano A. Diagnostic performance of dedicated positron emission mammography using fluoine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in woman with suspicious breast lesions: a metaanalysis. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(4):241-8.
15. Nishimatsu K, Nakamoto Y, Miyake KK, Ishimori T, Kanao S, Toi M, et al. Higher Breast cancer conspicuity on dbPET compared to WB-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:138-45.
16. Sato H, Ito S, Usuki Y, Miyake M, Kumagai K, Baba M, et al. Evaluation and development for positron emission mammography based on Pr: LuAG scintillator crystals. Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record Conference (NSS/MIC), 2012 IEEE; 2012 Oct 27.
17. Ito S, Sato H, Usuki Y, Miyake M, Kumagai K, Baba M, et al. Fundamental performance of a new planer PEM. Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), 2012 IEEE; 2012 Oct 27. P. 3519-20.
18. Yoshikawa A, Yanagida T, Kamada K, Yokota Y, Pejchal J, Yamaji A, et al. Positron emission mammography using Pr: LuAG scintillator-Fusion of optical material study and systems engineering. Optical Materials. 2010;32(10):1294-7.
19. Sasaki T, Sera K, Ishii K. Comparison of PET performance in clinical examination among PET facilities. Radioisotopes. 2011;60(11):473-86.
20. Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography: feature analysis and rates of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):956-70.
21. 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(1):59-72.
22. Boerner AR, Weckesser M, Herzog H, Schmitz T, Audretsch W, Nitz U, et al. Optimal scan time for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26(3):226-30.
23. Mavi A, Urhan M, Yu JQ, Zhuang H, Houseni M, Cermik TF, et al. Dual time point 18F-FDG WBPET imaging detects breast cancer with high sensitivity and correlates well with histologic subtypes. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(9):1440-6.
Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology
Volume 7, Issue 1
January 2019
Pages 13-21

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics