A multiparametric [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI diagnostic model including imaging biomarkers of the tumor and contralateral healthy breast tissue aids breast cancer diagnosis

In recent years, positron emission tomography (PET) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the breast have been established as promising tools [1‐3] that provide morphologic and functional data and are of complementary value for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors [4]. MpMRI consisting of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) [5, 6] and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) [7, 8] provides information on tumor neoangiogenesis, microenvironment and microstructural changes. PET using the radiotracer ¹⁸-fluorodeoxyglucose ([¹⁸F]FDG) provides data on lesion glucose metabolism and is of complimentary value to MRI for breast cancer diagnosis [2, 9‐13]. To combine the strengths of these imaging techniques, hybrid imaging systems have been developed and introduced into the clinical routine. With PET/MRI systems, morphologic and different functional information can be merged to non-invasively characterize breast tumors as benign or malignant.

The predictive and prognostic value of imaging features derived from healthy breast tissue such as background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) in DCE-MRI have been recognized only recently. BPE is the physiological contrast enhancement of fibroglandular tissue (FGT). Previous studies have found correlations between higher levels of BPE and FGT and increased cancer risk in a high risk population [14, 15], while associations between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of normal breast tissue and cancer outcomes have not been explored. Similar to MRI, healthy breast parenchyma shows varying degrees of tracer uptake in [¹⁸F]FDG PET, reflecting its physiologic activity, referred to as breast parenchymal uptake (BPU) [16, 17] and is directly correlated with BPE and FGT. It has therefore been suggested that BPU could potentially serve as another breast cancer imaging biomarker [16‐18].

With the clinical implementation of PET/MRI scanners and given the improvements in diagnosis and prognosis that can be achieved with mpMRI, it is of interest to explore the potential of combined [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI to improve diagnostic accuracy and obviate unnecessary breast biopsies of benign breast tumors detected with MRI. To date it is unclear which quantitative and qualitative imaging features from both tumor and healthy tissue contribute to an accurate diagnosis. To close this gap in knowledge we aimed to develop a multiparametric [¹⁸]FDG PET/MRI model for breast cancer diagnosis incorporating imaging biomarkers of breast tumors and contralateral healthy breast tissue.

The local institutional review board (Ethikkommission Medizinische Universitaet Wien/Ethics Committee Medical University of Vienna) approved this prospective single-institution study (EK 510/2009) and retrospective data analysis. The research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations and informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI.

On DCE-MRI, morphological and kinetic features predictive of breast cancer presenting as masses were irregular/spiculated margin, irregular shape, heterogeneous internal enhancement and plateau/wash-out curves (P < 0.0001). Likewise, frequent features for benign mass lesions were round/oval shape, circumscribed margins, homogeneous/dark septations internal enhancement characteristics and persistent enhancement curves (P < 0.0001). Patients with a malignancy showed decreased BPE of the contralateral healthy breast (P = 0.001), while a borderline significant difference was observed for FGT (P = 0.0564).

On DWI, malignancies showed significant lower average ADCmean (0.96 × 10⁻³ mm²/s) compared with benign lesions (1.52 × 10⁻³ mm²/s) (P < 0.0001).

On [¹⁸F]FDG PET, breast cancers showed a higher FDG avidity (mean SUVmax 5.2) than benign tumors (mean SUVmax 2.6) (P < 0.0001).

Stratified analysis showed that menopause is not a confounder to our results.

Results of univariate analysis are summarized in Table 3.

With the increasing use of PET/MRI worldwide, it is of interest to clarify whether qualitative and quantitative MRI and PET imaging biomarkers can contribute to accurate breast cancer diagnosis. We analyzed the contribution of tumor [¹⁸F]FDG SUVmax, BPU of healthy breast tissue, tumor DCE-MRI BI-RADS descriptors, BPE, and FGT of the contralateral healthy breast and ADCmean of the tumor and healthy breast tissue. The results of this study show that a multiparametric [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI diagnostic model incorporating both qualitative and quantitative parameters of the tumor and the healthy contralateral tissue aids breast cancer diagnosis. In particular, tumor enhancement kinetics, tumor ADCmean, and BPE of the contralateral healthy breast were most strongly associated with breast cancer. While our findings indicate that imaging biomarkers of healthy breast parenchyma can contribute to breast cancer diagnosis, [¹⁸F]FDG PET parameters did not add to accuracy.

To date, in breast imaging, regression models based on MRI have already been shown to clarify which parameters are necessary for breast cancer detection and staging. Knuttel et al. developed a predictive model incorporating DCE-MRI parameters including FGT for prediction of the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component associated with the primary invasive breast cancer [24]. DWI with ADC mapping was also demonstrated to be a useful addition to prediction models presented by Rahbar et al. for the differentiation between high grade and non-high grade DCIS [25], and by Cheeney et al. for the prediction of upgrade to malignancy at surgical excision [26]. However, to date, neither a multiparametric model approach has been applied to PET/MRI of the breast nor have imaging features of the tumor as well as the healthy contralateral breast tissue been incorporated for cancer diagnosis. In this respect this study is particularly relevant.

Prior studies showed a positive correlation between BPE, FGT with MRI and BPU with [¹⁸F]FDG PET and therefore suggested that BPU could potentially aid as another easily quantifiable imaging biomarker for breast cancer [16, 17]. In our study, both features derived from [¹⁸F]FDG PET, SUVmax of the tumor and BPU SUVmax of the contralateral healthy breast, did not significantly contribute to breast cancer diagnosis. At least with respect to tumor SUVmax, this is not entirely surprising as in prior studies the additional information provided by [¹⁸F]FDG PET was not as great as originally anticipated. The radiotracer [¹⁸F]FDG has a good sensitivity but limited specificity and there is an overlap with several types of benign breast diseases. The use of other PET tracers that specifically target cancer hallmark processes such as hypoxia (¹⁸F-fluoromisonidazole) [27], proliferation (¹⁸F-fluorocholine, ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxythymidine) [28] and tumor and microenvironment acidity (pHLIP) [29, 30] may add more diagnostic, predictive and prognostic information [31] and therefore it can be expected that the full potential of PET/MRI is not realized yet.

Previous studies have suggested that larger tumor size, irregular or spiculated shape and margin, heterogeneous internal enhancement, and wash-out kinetics on DCE-MRI as described using the BI-RADS lexicon and descriptors to be most strongly indicative of malignancy [32‐34], which is in good agreement with our results. According to several studies and the revised BI-RADS lexicon, the combination of morphological and functional information acquired with DCE-MRI is necessary for breast cancer diagnosis [35]. Likewise, in the present study, multivariate logistic regression analysis identified tumor enhancement kinetics to be most strongly indicative of breast cancer.

Imaging parameters of healthy breast parenchyma are currently being examined as potential non-invasive predictive and prognostic breast cancer biomarkers [14, 15, 36]. Recently, BPE has been proposed as a risk factor for breast cancer in high-risk patients who were compared with matched control groups with benign or false-positive findings [14, 15]. These initial results were confirmed by Grimm et al., who compared another 61 high risk cancer patients with matched controls [37]. Hence, it has been suggested that BPE might represent metabolic activity of breast parenchyma and, as such, an environment beneficial for cancer development [38]. Unexpectedly, our results demonstrate that decreased contralateral BPE is strongly associated with breast cancer diagnosis, while previous studies in high-risk populations have suggested otherwise [14, 15, 37]. Our findings might be the result of a stealing phenomenon of contrast agent to the breast with cancer due to higher vascularity. Furthermore, these divergent results might occur as a result of these studies focusing solely on high-risk populations whose breast tissue is known to substantially differ from women of average cancer risk [39]. In women at average risk, BPE has not been demonstrated to be a risk factor yet, as indicated by Bennani-Baiti et al. [36]. Similarly, the role of FGT with regard to cancer risk remains unclear, although it is equivalent to mammographic breast density, an established risk factor for breast cancer [38]. While King et al. demonstrated mildly increased cancer odds for patients with increased FGT in a high risk population (OR: 1.2) [14], no correlation between FGT and the presence of cancer was found by Bennani-Baiti et al. in women at average risk [36]. These findings are in good agreement with our study, where contralateral BPE is strongly predictive of breast cancer, while FGT did not add accuracy. Further research with larger cohorts of individuals at average risk is warranted to confirm our results and clarify the underlying processes.

The multiparametric PET/MRI model developed in this study identified tumor ADCmean as one of three parameters essential for breast cancer diagnosis. Our results confirm the growing body of evidence that DWI is a valuable complimentary technique to DCE-MRI, adding specificity as well as functional information [5, 20, 40‐45], and hence should constitute an essential part in breast imaging. Tumor ADCmean has even been found to be potentially useful as a non-invasive biomarker for tumor grade, subtype, receptor status, and recurrence [46, 47]. A recent study found ADC values of 248 benign and malignant lesions to be independent from BPE, FGT, and menopausal status [48]. This study verifies the usefulness of lesion ADC as a stable, reliable imaging biomarker in breast imaging despite different patient characteristics. Meanwhile, apart from their positive correlation with mammographic breast density and independence of menstrual cycle and BPE [49‐51], not much is known about ADC values of healthy breast parenchyma. ADC values of the healthy breast did not add accuracy to the model developed in this study.

This study has some limitations. First, BPE and FGT were assessed qualitatively. However, the BI-RADS lexicon recommends qualitative assessment of these parameters, and excellent inter- and intra-reader agreement between experienced readers has been demonstrated previously for DCE-MRI and DWI parameters including BPE and FGT [4, 16, 52, 53]. Second, our study was not performed using a hybrid PET/MRI scanner, but fused PET/CT and MRI instead. Potential benefits of using a hybrid scanner would be improved fusion of PET and MRI images, as well as acquisition of both imaging series on the same day. Hence, in our study, not all MRI and PET/CT examinations were performed on the same day (range 0–6), which might have influenced parameters such as BPE and BPU due to changes with menstrual cycle [18, 54]. Nevertheless, relevant changes in these biomarkers seem unlikely, as the mean time of 1.15 days between examinations was short. Third, in this study, the same data set was used to train and evaluate regression models. Typically, such models perform better on the data they were trained with than on additional data. Further studies with larger patient collectives, separate training and validation datasets, and bilateral quantitative assessment of all parameters are warranted to confirm our findings. In addition, the model developed in this study needs to be validated in an independent test group.

In conclusion, in a multiparametric [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI model including imaging biomarkers of the tumor and healthy breast tissue, tumor enhancement kinetics, ADCmean tumor, and BPE of the contralateral breast were most strongly associated with breast cancer diagnosis. Other imaging biomarkers did not significantly contribute to breast cancer diagnosis. Implementation of multiparametric PET/MRI imaging biomarkers of healthy breast tissue for breast cancer diagnosis should be considered.