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
Review
. 2020 Aug 12:10:1301.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01301. eCollection 2020.

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

Affiliations
Review

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

Yue Ming et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Breast cancer is a major disease with high morbidity and mortality in women worldwide. Increased use of imaging biomarkers has been shown to add more information with clinical utility in the detection and evaluation of breast cancer. To date, numerous studies related to PET-based imaging in breast cancer have been published. Here, we review available studies on the clinical utility of different PET-based molecular imaging methods in breast cancer diagnosis, staging, distant-metastasis detection, therapeutic and prognostic prediction, and evaluation of therapeutic responses. For primary breast cancer, PET/MRI performed similarly to MRI but better than PET/CT. PET/CT and PET/MRI both have higher sensitivity than MRI in the detection of axillary and extra-axillary nodal metastases. For distant metastases, PET/CT has better performance in the detection of lung metastasis, while PET/MRI performs better in the liver and bone. Additionally, PET/CT is superior in terms of monitoring local recurrence. The progress in novel radiotracers and PET radiomics presents opportunities to reclassify tumors by combining their fine anatomical features with molecular characteristics and develop a beneficial pathway from bench to bedside to predict the treatment response and prognosis of breast cancer. However, further investigation is still needed before application of these modalities in clinical practice. In conclusion, PET-based imaging is not suitable for early-stage breast cancer, but it adds value in identifying regional nodal disease and distant metastases as an adjuvant to standard diagnostic imaging. Recent advances in imaging techniques would further widen the comprehensive and convergent applications of PET approaches in the clinical management of breast cancer.

Keywords: PET; PET/CT; PET/MR; breast cancer; molecular imaging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The developing utility of PET-based techniques in breast cancer. The graph represents a timeline of important technological developments in PET-based techniques. The solid line represents the change in the number of PubMed clinical trial publications for PET and breast cancer per year between 1988 and 2018. The earliest models of PET/MR and PET/CT date back to 1987 and 1988, respectively. As shown in the figure, the use of PET in breast cancer has increased dramatically over the past years, benefiting from the development of commercial equipment and breast-specific imaging approaches.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A 50-year-old woman with carcinoma of the right breast. (A) Molybdenum target mammography shows a mass in the upper quadrant of the right breast with an irregular shape, fuzzy boundary, speculation, linear calcification, and a retracted nipple. (B) Enhanced MRI shows that the right breast mass was significantly enhanced during the arterial phase, with a high signal on (C) T2WI/FS and (D) DWI. Axial (E) CT, (F) fused image, (G) FDG-PET, and (H) MIP (maximal intensity projection) image show irregular nodules with intense uptake on the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. R, right; L, left; RCC, right craniocaudal; RMLO, right mediolateral oblique.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A 66-year-old woman with lymph-node metastasis of the left breast. Axial (A) CT, (B) FDG-PET, (C) fused image, and (D) MIP image show enlarged lymph nodes with intense uptake in the left axilla. The SUVmax was 3.4. R, right; L, left.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. (2018) 68:7–30. 10.3322/caac.21442 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. . Breast cancer, version 4.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. (2018) 16:310–20. 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. . Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. (2005) 353:1773–83. 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tang S, Wei L, Sun Y, Zhou F, Zhu S, Yang R, et al. . CA153 in breast secretions as a potential molecular marker for diagnosing breast cancer: a meta analysis. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0163030. 10.1371/journal.pone.0163030 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee JH, Rosen EL, Mankoff DA. The role of radiotracer imaging in the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer: part 1–overview, detection, and staging. J Nucl Med. (2009) 50:569–81. 10.2967/jnumed.108.053512 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources