nach oben

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

Erschienen in:

01.02.2016 | Original Article

A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography

verfasst von: Yayoi Yamamoto, Youichiro Tasaki, Yukiko Kuwada, Yukihiko Ozawa, Tomio Inoue

Erschienen in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) have had a considerable impact on the detection of various malignancies. PET and PET/CT are minimally invasive methods that can provide whole-body imaging at one time. Therefore, an FDG-PET cancer screening program has been widely used in Japan. However, the breast cancer detection rate of FDG-PET cancer screening is relatively low. Therefore, FDG-PET screening is not recommended for breast cancer screening. Positron emission mammography (PEM) is a high-resolution molecular breast imaging technology. PEM can detect small breast cancers that cannot be detected on PET or PET/CT images due to limited spatial resolution. We have performed opportunistic breast cancer screening using PEM since 2011. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report regarding PEM breast cancer screening.

Methods

This study enrolled 265 women. PEM images were analyzed by agreement of 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians. The readers were given information from medical interview sheet. US findings were interpreted holistically. The number of participants, patient recall rate, further examination rate, and cancer detection rate by year were calculated.

Results

The overall recall rate was 8.3 %; the work-up examination rate was 77.3 %, and cancer detection rate was 2.3 %. The positive predictive value of PEM was 27.3 %. Six cancers were found by PEM screening. Five were invasive cancers and one was ductal carcinoma in situ. Histological tumor sizes were reported in three cases: 0.7, 1.2, and 2 cm.

Conclusion

PEM screening appears to have potential for breast cancer screening.

Minamimoto R, Senda M, Terauchi T, Jinnouchi S, Inoue T, Iinuma T, et al. Analysis of various malignant neoplasms detected by FDG-PET cancer screening program: based on a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:45–54. doi:10.1007/s12149-010-0428-0.CrossRefPubMed

The results of questionnaires. In: PET and PET. http://www.jcpet.jp/1-4-4C. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.

Minamimoto R, Senda M, Uno K, Jinnouchi S, Iinuma T, Ito K, et al. Performance profile of FDG-PET and PET/CT for cancer screening on the basis of a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:481–98.CrossRefPubMed

Kojima S, Zhou B, Teramukai S, Hara A, Kosaka N, Matsuo Y, et al. Cancer screening of healthy volunteers using whole-body 18F-FDG-PET scans: the Nishidai clinic study. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1842–8.CrossRefPubMed

Terauchi T, Murano T, Daisaki H, Kanou D, Shoda H, Kakinuma R, et al. Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:379–85. doi:10.1007/s12149-008-0130-7.CrossRefPubMed

Ohuchi N, Yoshida K, Kimura M, Ouchi A, Kamioki S, Shiiba K, et al. Improved detection rate of early breast cancer in mass screening combined with mammography. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1993;84:807–12.CrossRefPubMed

Tozaki M, Isomoto I, Kojima Y, Kubota K, Kuroki Y, Ohnuki K, et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for screening and imaging diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:28–36. doi:10.1007/s12282-014-0557-8.CrossRefPubMed

Bénard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:153–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:84–99.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Avril N, Rosé CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3495–502.PubMed

11.

Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12:309–23.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE. Berg WAInterpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:971–81. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5081.CrossRef

13.

Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, Narayanan D, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258:59–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1666–75. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.064345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Yamamoto Y, Tasaki Y, KuwadaY Ozawa Y, Katayama K, Kanemaki Y, et al. Positron emission mammography (PEM): reviewing standardized semiquantitative method. ANM. 2013;27:795–801.

16.

Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:793–806.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. 1995;75:2507–17.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:27–30.PubMed

19.

Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub.PubMed

20.

Matsuda T, Marugame T, Kamo K, Katanoda K, Ajiki W, Sobue v, Japan Cancer Surveillance Research Group. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in based on data from 12 population-based cancer registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;2011(41):139–47. doi:10.1093/jjco/hyq169.

21.

Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901–10.CrossRef

23.

Grobner T. Gadolinium—a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2006;21:1104–8.CrossRef

24.

Kribben A, Witzke O, Hillen U, Barkhausen J, Daul AE, Erbel R. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1621–8. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.12.061.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast. 2012;21:66–71.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, et al. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:260–75.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Yamamoto Y, Ozawa Y, Kubouchi K, Nakamura S, Nakajima Y, Inoue I. Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:21–5.CrossRefPubMed

28.

American College of Radiology national mammography database. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/National-Radiology-Data-Registry/National-Mammography-DB. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.

29.

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, European Commission, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006.

30.

The concept for future cancer screening program of our country. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2008/03/s0301-4.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.

31.

Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE, The J, Velasquez MV, Kahn S, et al. Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:23–36. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1588-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, Quon A, Villalpando J, Dahlborn M, et al. Relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1238–42.PubMed

33.

Kumar R, Mitchell S, Alavi A. 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1423.PubMed

34.

Mavi A, Cermik TF, Urhan M, Puskulcu H, Basu S, Cucchiara AJ, et al. The effect of age, menopausal state, and breast density on (18)F-FDG uptake in normal glandular breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:347–52. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.068718.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2010;2008(299):2151–63. doi:10.1001/jama.299.18.2151 (Erratum. In: JAMA; 303(15): 1482).

36.

International Commission of the International Commission on Radiological. Protection (ICRCP Publication 60). Ann ICRP. 1991;21:1–20.CrossRef

Titel: A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography
verfasst von: Yayoi Yamamoto
Youichiro Tasaki
Yukiko Kuwada
Yukihiko Ozawa
Tomio Inoue
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2016
Verlag: Springer Japan
Erschienen in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Elektronische ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1040-0

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Evaluation of 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPECT in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease versus other progressive movement disorders

FDG PET/CT for assessing the resectability of NSCLC patients with N2 disease after neoadjuvant therapy

Iodine-131 imaging using 284 keV photons with a small animal CZT-SPECT system dedicated to low-medium-energy photon detection

The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity

Current generation time-of-flight 18F-FDG PET/CT provides higher SUVs for normal adrenal glands, while maintaining an accurate characterization of benign and malignant glands

Discriminant function analysis of the occurrence risk of abnormal electrocardiogram in thyroidectomized differentiated thyroid carcinoma patients with short-term overt hypothyroidism