Diagnostic Accuracy of Fused Positron Emission Tomography/magnetic Resonance Mammography: Initial Results

Overview

Journal Br J Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Radiology

Date 2010 Oct 21

PMID 20959375

Citations 8

Authors

T A Heusner

S Hahn

C Jonkmanns

S Kuemmel

F Otterbach

M E Hamami

A R Stahl

A Bockisch

M Forsting

G Antoch

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fused fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography (FDG-PET/MRM) in breast cancer patients and to compare FDG-PET/MRM with MRM.

Methods: 27 breast cancer patients (mean age 58.9±9.9 years) underwent MRM and prone FDG-PET. Images were fused software-based to FDG-PET/MRM images. Histopathology served as the reference standard to define the following parameters for both MRM and FDG-PET/MRM: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Furthermore, the number of patients with correctly determined lesion focality was assessed. Differences between both modalities were assessed by McNemaŕs test (p<0.05). The number of patients in whom FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical approach was determined.

Results: 58 breast lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 93%, 60%, 87%, 75% and 85% for MRM, respectively. For FDG-PET/MRM they were 88%, 73%, 90%, 69% and 92%, respectively. FDG-PET/MRM was as accurate for lesion detection (p = 1) and determination of the lesions' focality (p = 0.7722) as MRM. In only 1 patient FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical treatment.

Conclusion: FDG-PET/MRM is as accurate as MRM for the evaluation of local breast cancer. FDG-PET/MRM defines the tumours' focality as accurately as MRM and may have an impact on the surgical treatment in only a small portion of patients. Based on these results, FDG-PET/MRM cannot be recommended as an adjunct or alternative to MRM.

Citing Articles

Clinical advances in PET-MRI for breast cancer.

Fowler A, Strigel R Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23(1):e32-e43.

PMID: 34973230 PMC: 9673821. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00577-5.

Progress and Future Trends in PET/CT and PET/MRI Molecular Imaging Approaches for Breast Cancer.

Ming Y, Wu N, Qian T, Li X, Wan D, Li C Front Oncol. 2020; 10:1301.

PMID: 32903496 PMC: 7435066. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01301.

Local and whole-body staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison of one-step to two-step staging utilizing F-FDG-PET/MRI.

Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, Martin O, Oehmigen M, Quick H, Bittner A Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45(13):2328-2337.

PMID: 30056547 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4102-4.

Breast PET/MR Imaging.

Melsaether A, Moy L Radiol Clin North Am. 2017; 55(3):579-589.

PMID: 28411681 PMC: 6080619. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2016.12.011.

The application of positron emission tomography (PET/CT) in diagnosis of breast cancer. Part II. Diagnosis after treatment initiation, future perspectives.

Jodlowska E, Czepczynski R, Czarnywojtek A, Rewers A, Jarzabek G, Kedzia W Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2016; 20(3):205-9.

PMID: 27647983 PMC: 5013681. DOI: 10.5114/wo.2016.61560.

References

Winnekendonk G, Krug B, Warm M, Gohring U, Mallmann P, Lackner K . [Diagnostic value of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast]. Rofo. 2004; 176(5):688-93. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813119. View

Kuhl C, Braun M . [Magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging for breast cancer: pros and contras]. Radiologe. 2008; 48(4):358-66. DOI: 10.1007/s00117-008-1665-2. View

Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E . Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999; 213(3):881-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc01881. View

Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat A, Marnitz S, Beyer T, Kuehl H . Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology. 2003; 229(2):526-33. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2292021598. View

Degani H, Gusis V, Weinstein D, Fields S, Strano S . Mapping pathophysiological features of breast tumors by MRI at high spatial resolution. Nat Med. 1997; 3(7):780-2. DOI: 10.1038/nm0797-780. View

Van Goethem M, Tjalma W, Schelfout K, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, Parizel P . Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006; 32(9):901-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.06.009. View

Avril N, Rose C, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S . Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(20):3495-502. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.20.3495. View

Beyer T, Weigert M, Quick H, Pietrzyk U, Vogt F, Palm C . MR-based attenuation correction for torso-PET/MR imaging: pitfalls in mapping MR to CT data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008; 35(6):1142-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-008-0734-0. View

Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, Colpaert C, Verslegers I, Biltjes I . MR mammography is useful in the preoperative locoregional staging of breast carcinomas with extensive intraductal component. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 62(2):273-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.12.004. View

10.

Rim A, Chellman-Jeffers M . Trends in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008; 75 Suppl 1:S2-9. DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.75.suppl_1.s2. View

11.

Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Chiesa C, Pascali C, Bogni A . Association between [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(10):1429-34. DOI: 10.1007/s002590050319. View

12.

Pichler B, Judenhofer M, Pfannenberg C . Multimodal imaging approaches: PET/CT and PET/MRI. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2008; (185 Pt 1):109-32. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-72718-7_6. View

13.

Hammer C, Fanning A, Crowe J . Overview of breast cancer staging and surgical treatment options. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008; 75 Suppl 1:S10-6. DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.75.suppl_1.s10. View

14.

Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D, Margalit R, Degani H . Response of MCF7 human breast cancer to tamoxifen: evaluation by the three-time-point, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging method. Clin Cancer Res. 1998; 4(10):2299-304. View

15.

Pichler B, Wehrl H, Kolb A, Judenhofer M . Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: the next generation of multimodality imaging?. Semin Nucl Med. 2008; 38(3):199-208. PMC: 2762705. DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.02.001. View

16.

Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg L, Akhurst T, Mueller S . Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003; 30(4):588-96. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-002-1097-6. View

17.

Warner E, Plewes D, Shumak R, Catzavelos G, Di Prospero L, Yaffe M . Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19(15):3524-31. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.15.3524. View

18.

Zakhireh J, Gomez R, Esserman L . Converting evidence to practice: a guide for the clinical application of MRI for the screening and management of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44(18):2742-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.008. View

19.

Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller S, Beyer T . Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(21):4357-68. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.120. View

20.

Tardivon A, Athanasiou A, Thibault F, El Khoury C . Breast imaging and reporting data system (BIRADS): magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2006; 61(2):212-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.036. View