Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Oct 8;47(4):390-7.
doi: 10.2478/raon-2013-0031. eCollection 2013.

The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography

Affiliations

The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography

Eun-Ha Moon et al. Radiol Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: The objective of the study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of an integrated Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18 FDG) PET/CT-mammography (mammo-PET/CT) with conventional torso PET/CT (supine-PET/CT) and MR-mammography for initial assessment of breast cancer patients.

Patients and methods: Forty women (52.0 ± 12.0 years) with breast cancer who underwent supine-PET/CT, mammo-PET/CT, and MR-mammography from April 2009 to August 2009 were enrolled in the study. We compared the size of the tumour, tumour to chest wall distance, tumour to skin distance, volume of axillary fossa, and number of meta-static axillary lymph nodes between supine-PET/CT and mammo-PET/CT. Next, we assessed the difference of focality of primary breast tumour and tumour size in mammo-PET/CT and MR-mammography. Histopathologic findings served as the standard of reference.

Results: In the comparison between supine-PET/CT and mammo-PET/CT, significant differences were found in the tumour size (supine-PET/CT: 1.3 ± 0.6 cm, mammo-PET/CT: 1.5 ± 0.6 cm, p < 0.001), tumour to thoracic wall distance (1.8 ± 0.9 cm, 2.2 ± 2.1 cm, p < 0.001), and tumour to skin distance (1.5 ± 0.8 cm, 2.1 ± 1.4 cm, p < 0.001). The volume of axillary fossa was significantly wider in mammo-PET/CT than supine-PET/CT (21.7 ± 8.7 cm(3) vs. 23.4 ± 10.4 cm(3), p = 0.03). Mammo-PET/CT provided more correct definition of the T-stage of the primary tumour than did supine-PET/CT (72.5% vs. 67.5%). No significant difference was found in the number of metastatic axillary lymph nodes. Compared with MR-mammography, mammo-PET/CT provided more correct classification of the focality of lesion than did MR-mammography (95% vs. 90%). In the T-stage, 72.5% of cases with mammo-PET/CT and 70% of cases with MR-mammography showed correspondence with pathologic results.

Conclusions: Mammo-PET/CT provided more correct definition of the T-stage and evaluation of axillary fossa may also be delineated more clearly than with supine-PET/CT. The initial assessment of mammo-PET/CT would be more useful than MR-mammography because the mammo-PET/CT indicates similar accuracy with MR-mammography for decision of T-stage of primary breast tumour and more correct than MR-mammography for defining focality of lesion.

Keywords: MRI; breast cancer; fluorodeoxyglucose; mammography; positron emission tomography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Breast positioning device. The device is constructed for prone breast positioning.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
A woman with right breast cancer performed the supine-PET/CT and mammo-PET/CT. A The primary tumour was abutted on the chest wall in the supine-PET/CT. BThe tumour could be more clearly distinguished from the chest wall in the mammo-PET/CT.
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.
Assessment of axillary fossa in the woman with left breast cancer. A The volume of left axillary fossa measured 15 cm3 in the supine-PET/CT. B The volume of axillary fossa measured 24 cm3 in the mammo-PET/CT and the assessment of axillary fossa for the potential of metastatic axillary lymph node can be more clear and easy tudy group.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:106–30. - PubMed
    1. Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:521–6. - PubMed
    1. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancer missed at screening mammography. Radiology. 1992;184:613–7. - PubMed
    1. Adriaenssens N, Belsack D, Buyl R, Ruggiero L, Breucq C, De Mey J, Lievens P, Lamote J. Ultrasound elastography as an objective diagnostic measurement tool for lymphoedema of the treated breast in breast cancer patients following breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. Radiol Oncol. 2012;46:284–95. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zebic-Sinkovec M, Hertl K, Kadivec M, Cavlek M, Podobnik G, Snoj M. Outcome of MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy – initial experience at Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia. Radiol Oncol. 2012;46:97–105. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources