nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

01.06.2004

Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer

verfasst von: Peter Lind, Isabel Igerc, Thomas Beyer, Peter Reinprecht, Klaus Hausegger

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Sonderheft 1/2004

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

18F-Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) has been evaluated in breast cancer for the characterisation of primary tumours, lymph node staging and the follow-up of patients after surgery, chemotherapy and/or external radiotherapy. In contrast to both the low sensitivity and moderate specificity of FDG PET in the initial detection and characterisation of breast cancer and the low lesion-based sensitivity for lymph node staging, the results from use of FDG PET in re-staging breast cancer patients are very promising. A major advantage of FDG PET imaging compared with conventional imaging is that it screens the entire patient for local recurrence, lymph node metastases and distant metastases during a single whole-body examination using a single injection of activity, with a reported average sensitivity and specificity of 96% and 77%, respectively. In most studies the sensitivity of FDG PET is higher than that of a combination of conventional imaging methods. Limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer patients include the relatively low detection rate of bone metastases, especially in case of the sclerotic subtype, and the relatively high rate of false positive results. The rather low specificity of FDG PET can be improved/increased by utilising combined anatomical-molecular imaging techniques, such as a PET/CT tomograph. First results using PET/CT imaging in the follow-up of breast cancer patients demonstrate increased specificity compared with FDG PET alone. Both imaging modalities, however, offer to detect recurrent and metastatic breast cancer disease at an early stage and thus continue to demonstrate the efficacy of molecular imaging in patient management, despite the limited therapeutic options in recurrent and metastatic breast cancer.

Cook G, Fogelman I. Skeletal metastases from breast cancer: imaging with nuclear medicine. Semin Nucl Med 1999; 29:69–79.PubMed

Lind P, Smola M, Lechner P, Ratschek M, Klima G, Költringer P, Steindorfer P, Eber O. The immunoscintigraphic use of Tc-99m labelled monoclonal anti-CEA antibody (BW 431/26) in patients with suspected primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1991; 47:865–869.PubMed

Lind P, Gallowitsch H, Mikosch P, Kresnik E, Gomez I, Oman J, Dinges H, Boniface G. Radioimmunoscintigraphy with Tc99m labelled monoclonal antibody 170H.82 in suspected primary recurrent, or metastatic breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1997; 22:30–34.CrossRefPubMed

Lind P, Gallowitsch H, Kogler D, Kresnik E, Mikosch P, Gomez I. Tc-99m tetrofosmin mammoscintigraphy: a prospective study in primary breast lesions. Nucl Med 1996; 35:225–229.

Spanu A, Farris A, Schillaci O, Chessa F, Solinas M, Falchi A, Madi G, Nuvoli S, Madeddu G. The usefulness of Tc-99m tetrofosmin scintigraphy in patients with breast cancer recurrences. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24:145–154.CrossRefPubMed

Wahl R, Cody R, Hutchins G, Mudgett E. Positron emission tomography scanning of primary and metastatic breast cancer with radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2(¹⁸F)fluoro-d-glucose. N Engl J Med 1991; 324:200.

Flanagan F, Dehdashti F, Siegel B. PET in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1998; 28:290–302.PubMed

Avril N, Schelling M, Dose J, Weber W, Schwaiger M. Utility of PET in breast cancer. Clin Positron Imag 1999; 2:261–271.CrossRef

Bombardieri E, Grippa F. PET imaging in breast cancer. Q J Nucl Med 2001; 43:245–256.

10.

Czernin J. FDG PET in breast cancer: a different view of its clinical use. Mol Imag Biol 2002; 4:35–45.CrossRef

11.

Heinisch M, Gallowitsch H, Mikosch P, Kresnik E, Kumnig G, Gomez I, Lind P, Umschaden H, Gasser J, Forsthuber E. Comparison of FDG PET and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the evaluation of suggestive breast lesions. Breast 2003; 12:17–22.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Adler LP, Crowe JP, Al-Kaisi NK, Sunshine JL. Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose PET. Radiology 1993; 187:743–750.PubMed

13.

Hathaway P, Mankoff D, Maravilla K, Austin-Seymour M, Gralow J, Cortese A, Hayes C, Moe R. Value of combined FDG PET and MRI imaging in the evaluation of suspected recurrent local-regional breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology 1999; 210:807–814.PubMed

14.

Goerres G, Michel S, Fehr M, Kaim A, Steinert H, Seifert B, Schulthess von G, Kubik-Huch R. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:1635–1644.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Reske SN, Kotzerke J. FDG-PET for clinical use. Results of the 3rd German Interdisciplinary Consensus Conference, “Onko-PET III”, 21 July and 19 September 2000. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28:1707–1723.PubMed

16.

Hoh CK, Hawkins RA, Glaspy JA, Dahlbom M, Tse NY, Hoffman EJ, Schiepers C, Choi Y, Rege S, Nitzsche E, Maddahi J, Phelps ME. Cancer detection with whole-body PET using 2-[¹⁸F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17:582–589.PubMed

17.

Hamblen SM, Lowe VJ. Clinical¹⁸F-FDG oncology patient preparation techniques. J Nucl Med Technol 2003; 31:3–10.PubMed

18.

Minn H, Soini I. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose scintigraphy in diagnosis and follow-up of treatment in advanced breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 1989; 15:61–66.

19.

Kamel E, Wyss M, Fehr M, Schulthess von G, Goerres W. [¹⁸F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with suspected recurrence of breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2003; 129:147–153.PubMed

20.

Liu C, Shen Y, Lin C, Yen R, Kao C. Clinical impact of [¹⁸F]FDG PET in patients with suspected recurrent breast cancer based on asymptomatically elevated tumor marker serum levels: a preliminary study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2002; 32:244–247.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Eubank WB, Mankoff DA, Vesselle HJ, Eary JF, Schubert EK, Dunnwald LK, Lindsley SK, Gralow JR, Austin-Seymour MM, Ellis GK, Livingston RB. Detection of locoregional and distant recurrences in breast cancer patients by using FDG PET. Radiographics 2002; 22:5–17.PubMed

22.

Hathaway PB, Mankoff DA, Maravilla KR, Austin-Seymour MM, Ellis GK, Gralow JR, Cortese AA, Hayes CE, Moe RE. Value of combined FDG PET and MR imaging in the evaluation of suspected recurrent local-regional breast cancer: preliminary experience. Radiology 1999; 210:807–814.PubMed

23.

Wahl RL. To AC or not to AC? That is the question. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:2025–2028.

24.

Coleman RE. Is quantitation necessary for oncological PET studies? For. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 29:133–135.

25.

Avril N, Scheidhauer K, Kuhn W. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging for clinical oncology using a single tomograph. In: Wieler HJ, Coleman RE, eds. PET in clinical oncology. Darmstadt: Springer; 2000:355–371.

26.

Palmedo H. Breast cancer. In: Oehr P, Biersack H-J, Coleman ER, eds. PET and PET/CT in clinical oncologyHeidelberg Berlin New York: Springer, 2003.

27.

Boerner A, Weckesser M, Herzog H, Schmitz T, Audretsch W, Nitz U, Bender H, Mueller-Gaertner H. Optimal scan time for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26:226–230.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Langsteger W, Jorg L, Tausch C, Heinisch M, Wieser B, Rechberger E, Panholzer P, Sega W, Aufschnaiter M. The value of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose in positron emission tomography diagnosis of breast carcinoma [German]. Wiener Med Wochenschr 2002; 152:255–258.CrossRef

29.

Baslaim M, Bakheet S, Bakheet R, Ezzat A, El-Foudeh M, Tulbah A. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in inflammatory breast cancer. World J Surg 2003; 27:1099–1104.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Smith I, Welch A, Hutcheon A, Miller I, Payne S, Chilcott F, Waikar S, Whitaker T, Ah-See A, Eremin O, Heys S, Gilbert F, Sharp P. Positron emission tomography using [¹⁸F]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:1676–1688.PubMed

31.

Yang J, Nam S, Lee T, Lee H, Jung S, Kim B. Comparison of intraoperative frozen section analysis of sentinel node with preoperative positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2001; 31:1–6.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Pietrzyk U, Scheidhauer K, Scharl A, Schuster A, Schicha H. Presurgical visualization of primary breast carcinoma with PET emission and transmission imaging. J Nucl Med 1995; 36:1882–1884.PubMed

33.

Pietrzyk U. Fortschritte in der Bildfusion medizinischer Bilddaten aus PET, SPET, CT und MRT. Nuklearmediziner 2003; 26:235–244.CrossRef

34.

Dose J, Bleckmann C, Bachmann S, Bohuslavizki K, Berger J, Habermann C, Janicke F. Comparison of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and “conventional diagnostic procedures” for the detection of distant metastases in breast cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23:857–864.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Krak NC, van der Hoeven JM, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, va der Wall E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring [¹⁸F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:674–681.PubMed

36.

Brix G, Henze M, Knopp N, Lucht R, Doll J, Junkermann H, Hawighorst H, Haberkorn U. Comparison of pharmacokinetic MRI and [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the diagnosis of breast cancer: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:2058–2070.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan PE, Ferreira N, Bendriem B, Trebossen R. Optimization of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole-body PET J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1268–1278.

38.

Halpern B, Dahlbom M, Waldherr C, Quon A, Schiepers C, Silverman D, Ratib O, Czernin J. A new time-saving whole-body protocol for PET/CT imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 2003; 5:182.

39.

Muehllehner G, Karp K, Surti S. Design considerations for PET scanners. Q J Nucl Med 2002; 46:16–23.PubMed

40.

Townsend D, Carney JP, Yap JT, Hall NC. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med 2004; 45(Suppl 1):4S–14S.

41.

Kinahan P, Hasegawa B, Beyer T. X-ray based attenuation correction for PET/CT scanners. Semin Nucl Med 2003; XXXIII:166–179.CrossRef

42.

Zaidi H, Hasegawa B. Determination of the attenuation map in emission tomography. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:291–315.PubMed

43.

von Schulthess GKv. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol 2000; 10(Suppl 3):S377–S380.

44.

Holm S, Toft P, Jensen M. Estimation of the noise contributions from blank, transmission and emission scans in PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1996; 43:2285–2291.CrossRef

45.

Beyer T, Kinahan PE, Townsend DW. Optimization of emission and transmission scan duration in 3D whole-body PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1997; 44:2400–2407.CrossRef

46.

Beyer T, Antoch G, Freudenberg TS, Egelhof T, Müller SP. Considerations on FDG-PET/CT imaging protocols. J Nucl Med 2004; 45(Suppl 1):25S–35S.

47.

Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF. To enhance or not to enhance?¹⁸F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004; 45(Suppl 1): 56S–65S.

48.

Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Dose reduction in multidetector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181:331–334.

49.

Thompson CJ, Murthy K, Weinberg IN, Mako F. Feasibility study for positron emission mammography. Med Phys 1994; 21:529–538.PubMed

50.

Weinberg I, Majewski S, Weisenberger A, Markowitz A, Aloj L, Majewski L, Danforth D, Mulshine J, Cowan K, Zujewski J, Chow C, Jones E, Chang V, Berg W, Frank J. Preliminary results for positron emission mammography: real-time functional breast imaging in a conventional mammography gantry. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 1996; 23:804–806.

51.

Murthy K, Aznar M, Thompson CJ, Loutfi A, Lisbona R, Gagnon JH. Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1851–1858.PubMed

52.

Doshi NK, Shao Y, Silverman RW, Cherry SR. Design and evaluation of an LSO PET detector for breast cancer imaging. Med Phys 2000; 27:1535–1543.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Freifelder R, Karp J. Dedicated PET scanners for breast imaging. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42:2463–2480.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Raylman RR, Majewski S, Weisenberger AG, Popov V, Wojcik R, Kross B, Schreiman JS, Bishop HA. Positron emission mammography-guided breast biopsy. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:960–966.PubMed

55.

Warburg O, Posener K, Negelein E. The metabolism of cancer cells. Biochem Z 1924; 152:129–169.

56.

Moon DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DHS, Glaspy JA, Phelps ME, Hoh CK. Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1998; 39:431–435.PubMed

57.

Gallowitsch H, Kresnik E, Gasser J, Kumnig G, Igerc I, Mikosch P, Lind P. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol 2003; 38:250–256.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Bender H, Kirst J, Palmedo H. Value of 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging of recurrent breast cancer. Anticancer Res 1997; 17(3B):1687–1692.

59.

Suarez M, Perez-Castejon M, Jimenez A, Domper M, Ruiz G, Carreras J. Early diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer with FDG PET in patients with progressive elevation of serum tumor markers. Q J Nucl Med 2002; 46:113–121.PubMed

60.

Cook G, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey M, Fogelman I. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by F-18 FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:3375–3379.PubMed

61.

Hany TF, Gharepapagh E, Kamel EM, Buck A, Himms-Hagen J, von Schulthess GK. Brown adipose tissue: a factor to consider in symmetrical tracer uptake in the neck and upper chest region. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:1393–1398CrossRefPubMed

62.

Igerc I, Gallowitsch H, Kumnig G, Reinprecht P, Gomez I, Kresnik E, Matschnig S, Hausegger K, Lind P. Clinical performance of PET/CT in oncological patients: impact on diagnostic accuracy and patient management. Nucl Med 2003; 42:A181.

63.

Kumnig G, Igerc I, Gallowitsch H, Reinprecht P, Kresnik E, Lind P, Hausegger K. Impact of combined PET/CT imaging in reducing false positive results in FDG PET. Nucl Med 2003; 42:A166.

64.

Buck A, Wahl A, Eicher U, Blumstein N, Schirrmeister H, Helms G, Glattnig G, Neumaier B, Reske S. Combined morphological and functional imaging with FDG-PET/CT for restaging breast cancer—impact on patient management. J Nucl Med 2003; 44S: 78P.

Titel: Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer
verfasst von: Peter Lind
Isabel Igerc
Thomas Beyer
Peter Reinprecht
Klaus Hausegger
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2004
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe Sonderheft 1/2004
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1535-8

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer

Abstract

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 1/2004

PET/CT and breast cancer

The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management

Use of tomographic nuclear medicine procedures, SPECT and pinhole SPECT, with cationic lipophilic radiotracers for the evaluation of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients

153Sm-EDTMP for bone pain palliation in skeletal metastases

FDG PET and tumour markers in the diagnosis of recurrent and metastatic breast cancer

186Re-HEDP for metastatic bone pain in breast cancer patients