Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Tumor Staging in Patients With Primary Breast Cancer: A Comparison With Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast for lesion detection and local tumor staging of patients with primary breast cancer in comparison to PET/computed tomography (CT) and MRI. Materials and MethodsThe study was approved by the local institutional review board. Forty-nine patients with biopsy-proven invasive breast cancer were prospectively enrolled in our study. All patients underwent a PET/CT, and subsequently, a contrast-enhanced PET/MRI of the breast after written informed consent was obtained before each examination. Two radiologists independently evaluated the corresponding data sets (PET/CT, PET/MRI, and MRI) and were instructed to identify primary tumors lesions as well as multifocal/multicentric and bilateral disease. Furthermore, the occurrence of lymph node metastases was assessed, and the T-stage for each patient was determined. Histopathological verification of the local tumor extent and the axillary lymph node status was available for 30 of 49 and 48 of 49 patients, respectively. For the remaining patients, a consensus characterization was performed for the determination of the T-stage and nodal status, taking into account the results of clinical staging, PET/CT, and PET/MRI examinations. Statistical analysis was performed to test for differences in diagnostic performance between the different imaging procedures. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. ResultsPositron emission tomography/MRI and MRI correctly identified 47 (96%) of the 49 patients with primary breast cancer, whereas PET/CT enabled detection of 46 (94%) of 49 breast cancer patients and missed a synchronous carcinoma in the contralateral breast in 1 patient. In a lesion-by-lesion analysis, no significant differences could be obtained between the 3 imaging procedures for the identification of primary breast cancer lesions (P > 0.05). Positron emission tomography/MRI and MRI allowed for a correct identification of multifocal/multicentric disease in 3 additional patients if compared with PET/CT. For the definition of the correct T-stage, PET/MRI and MRI showed identical results and were correct in significantly more cases than PET/CT (PET/MRI and MRI, 82%; PET/CT, 68%; P < 0.05). Furthermore, the calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of nodal positive patients (n = 18) were 78%, 94%, 88%, 88%, and 88% for PET/CT; 67%, 87%, 75%, 82%, and 80% for MRI; and 78%, 90%, 82%, 88%, and 86% for PET/MRI, respectively. Differences between the imaging modalities were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). ConclusionsIntegrated PET/MRI does not provide diagnostic advantages for local tumor staging of breast cancer patients in comparison to MRI alone. Positron emission tomography/MRI and MRI enable an improved determination of the local tumor extent in comparison to PET/CT, whereas all 3 imaging modalities offer a comparable diagnostic performance for the identification of axillary disease.

[1]  Hwan-Jeong Jeong,et al.  The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography , 2013, Radiology and oncology.

[2]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  M. Silverstein,et al.  Accuracy of Predicting Axillary Lymph Node Positivity by Physical Examination, Mammography, Ultrasonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2012, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  Rakesh Kumar,et al.  The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer , 2009, European Radiology.

[5]  Michael Forsting,et al.  Simultaneous Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Whole-Body Staging in Patients With Recurrent Gynecological Malignancies of the Pelvis: A Comparison to Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging Alone , 2014, Investigative radiology.

[6]  A. Luini,et al.  A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases. , 2007, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[7]  D. Groheux,et al.  Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. , 2013, Radiology.

[8]  C. Compton,et al.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , 2002, Springer New York.

[9]  Wolfgang Bogner,et al.  Improved Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Tumors with Multiparametric 18Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Feasibility Study , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[10]  Yoon Jung Kang,et al.  The Effects of Preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT in Breast Cancer Patients in Comparison to the Conventional Imaging Study , 2012, Journal of breast cancer.

[11]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[12]  Wolfgang Bogner,et al.  A Combined High Temporal and High Spatial Resolution 3 Tesla MR Imaging Protocol for the Assessment of Breast Lesions: Initial Results , 2009, Investigative radiology.

[13]  A. Bhattacharya,et al.  Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT in recurrent breast carcinoma , 2012, Nuclear medicine communications.

[14]  Evelyn Wenkel,et al.  Toward simultaneous PET/MR breast imaging: systematic evaluation and integration of a radiofrequency breast coil. , 2013, Medical physics.

[15]  Karel G M Moons,et al.  Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. , 2008, Radiology.

[16]  Heinrich R Schelbert,et al.  Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  A. Jena,et al.  imultaneous whole-body 18 F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of reast cancer : A pilot study , 2014 .

[18]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Improving Specificity of Breast MRI Using Prone PET and Fused MRI and PET 3D Volume Datasets , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[19]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  C. Kuhl The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. , 2007, Radiology.

[21]  D B Plewes,et al.  Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  E. Rutgers,et al.  Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for primary tumor visualization and staging in T1 breast cancer , 2014, Acta oncologica.

[23]  T. Helbich,et al.  Improved Diagnostic Accuracy With Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Diffusion-Weighted Imaging, and 3-Dimensional Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging , 2014, Investigative radiology.

[24]  M. Kell,et al.  FDG-PET/CT in the staging of local/regional metastases in breast cancer. , 2011, Breast.

[25]  E Grabbe,et al.  Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. , 1999, Radiology.

[26]  T. Helbich,et al.  Quantitative Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as a Noninvasive Imaging Biomarker for the Differentiation of Invasive Breast Cancer and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ , 2015, Investigative radiology.

[27]  M. Forsting,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography: initial results. , 2011, The British journal of radiology.

[28]  S. Kumita,et al.  FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer , 2012, Acta radiologica.

[29]  E. Hauth,et al.  Breast Cancer Staging in a Single Session: Whole-Body PET/CT Mammography , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[30]  Carlo Catalano,et al.  The Challenge of Imaging Dense Breast Parenchyma: Is Magnetic Resonance Mammography the Technique of Choice? A Comparative Study With X-Ray Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound , 2009, Investigative radiology.

[31]  Nassir Navab,et al.  Tissue Classification as a Potential Approach for Attenuation Correction in Whole-Body PET/MRI: Evaluation with PET/CT Data , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[32]  Axel Haase,et al.  A 16-channel MR coil for simultaneous PET/MR imaging in breast cancer , 2015, European Radiology.

[33]  Kjell Arne Kvistad,et al.  Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. , 2007, Breast.