Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Pretreatment SUV in 18F-FDG/PET in Breast Cancer: Comparison with Apparent Diffusion Coefficient from Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging

In oncology, the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measured by diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) and the standardized uptake value (SUV) from 18F-FDG PET have similar clinical applications. The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between the ADC and SUV and compare their potential in the diagnosis and prediction of prognosis in breast tumors. Methods: Seventy-nine female patients (age range, 19–69 y; average, 49.1 y) with 83 pathologically proven breast tumors were recruited. The diagnoses consisted of 70 malignant breast tumors (65 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1 of medullary carcinoma, 1 of mucinous carcinoma, 1 of squamous cell carcinoma, and 2 of micropapillary carcinoma) and 13 benign breast tumors (4 cases of fibroadenoma, 4 of mastopathy, 3 of adenosis with atypia, and 2 of benign phyllodes tumor). All patients underwent mammary gland MR imaging with DWI and 18F-FDG PET within a 2-wk interval. The patients’ ADCs and SUVs were measured within the tumor by DWI and 18F-FDG PET, respectively. For the malignant tumors, we evaluated the relationships among ADC, SUV, histopathologic appearance, and long-term prognosis. Results: A significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed in both parameters (ADC and SUV) between the benign and malignant breast tumors, and the difference was more significant when we introduced a new parameter, SUV/ADC. There was a weak inverse correlation between ADC and SUV (r = −0.36; P = 0.06) among the total tumors; however, this correlation was not significant within the group of malignant tumors. High SUV was found to correlate with larger tumor size, higher nuclear grade, and the triple-negative hormonal receptor profile. High ADC was revealed to be correlated with negative progesterone receptor and positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 profile. Higher SUVs also showed a correlation with poor prognosis. No correlation was seen between ADC and prognosis. Conclusion: Both SUV and ADC are helpful parameters in differentiating benign from malignant breast tumors. The use of SUV and ADC in combination may help in the diagnosis because of their inverse relationship. High preoperative SUV was associated with poor prognosis, but the contribution of ADC to prognosis prediction was small.

[1]  M. Souvatzoglou,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT. , 2013, Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer.

[2]  A. Nassar,et al.  Inference of the Basal Epithelial Phenotype in Breast Carcinoma from Differential Marker Expression, Using Tissue Microarrays in Triple Negative Breast Cancer and Women Younger than 35 , 2012, The breast journal.

[3]  Sung Hun Kim,et al.  Diffusion-weighted imaging and FDG PET/CT: predicting the prognoses with apparent diffusion coefficient values and maximum standardized uptake values in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma , 2012, World Journal of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2012 , 2012, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[5]  Y. Kajiya,et al.  FDG PET/CT and diffusion-weighted imaging for breast cancer: prognostic value of maximum standardized uptake values and apparent diffusion coefficient values of the primary lesion , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  H. Hatabu,et al.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast: evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and signal intensity in correlation with histologic findings. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  J. Abraham,et al.  Role of positron-emission tomography scan in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer. , 2009, Oncology.

[8]  Hiroshi Honda,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. , 2008, Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

[9]  Steven Sourbron,et al.  Deconvolution-based dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast tumors: correlation of tumor blood flow with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and clinicopathologic findings--preliminary results. , 2008, Radiology.

[10]  Joan C Vilanova,et al.  Diffusion-weighted whole-body MR screening. , 2008, European journal of radiology.

[11]  T. Hirai,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of pilocytic astrocytomas: usefulness of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (adc) value for differentiation from high-grade gliomas , 2008, Acta radiologica.

[12]  A. Alavi,et al.  Comparison of triple‐negative and estrogen receptor‐positive/progesterone receptor‐positive/HER2‐negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters , 2008, Cancer.

[13]  [Value of fused 18F-FDG PET/CT images in predicting efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer]. , 2007, Ai zheng = Aizheng = Chinese journal of cancer.

[14]  D. Collins,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  Yaming Li,et al.  [Performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of primary breast cancer and staging of the regional lymph nodes]. , 2007, Zhonghua zhong liu za zhi [Chinese journal of oncology].

[16]  Thomas E Yankeelov,et al.  Integration of quantitative DCE-MRI and ADC mapping to monitor treatment response in human breast cancer: initial results. , 2007, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[17]  Peter Gibbs,et al.  Diffusion changes precede size reduction in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. , 2006, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[18]  Thierry Metens,et al.  Quantitative diffusion imaging in breast cancer: A clinical prospective study , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI , 2005, European Radiology.

[20]  Claudio Landoni,et al.  PET/CT and breast cancer , 2004, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[21]  M. Tonato,et al.  Evaluation of the Prognostic Role of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Microvessel Density in Stages I and II Breast Cancer Patients , 2003, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[22]  Peter Devilee,et al.  Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs , 2003 .

[23]  Ning-Yu An,et al.  Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion‐weighted imaging , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  M. Kurosumi,et al.  [Diagnosis of breast cancer extent and enhancement patterns using 3D-dynamic MR imaging: correlation with intraductal component]. , 1999, Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai zasshi. Nippon acta radiologica.

[25]  M Schwaiger,et al.  Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  R L Wahl,et al.  Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. , 1993, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Positron emission tomography with fluorine‐18‐deoxyglucose in the detection and staging of breast cancer , 1993, Cancer.

[28]  N. Dubrawsky Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.