Role of Fusion of Prone FDG‐PET and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breasts in the Evaluation of Breast Cancer

Abstract:  The purpose of this study is to report further about the statistically significant results from a prospective study, which suggests that fusion of prone F‐18 Fluoro‐deoxy‐glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance (MR) breast scans increases the positive predictive value (PPV) and specificity for patients in whom the MR outcome alone would be nonspecific. Thirty‐six women (mean age, 43 years; range, 24–65 years) with 90 lesions detected on MR consented to undergo a FDG‐PET scan. Two blinded readers evaluated the MR and the computer tomography (CT) attenuation‐corrected prone FDG‐PET scans side‐by‐side, then after the volumes were superimposed (fused). A semiautomatic, landmark‐based program was used to perform nonrigid fusion. Pathology and radiologic follow‐up were used as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (with 95% confidence intervals) for MR alone, FDG‐PET alone, and fused MR and FDG‐PET were calculated. The median lesion size measured from the MR was 2.5 cm (range, 0.5–10 cm). Histologically, 56 lesions were malignant, and 15 were benign. Nineteen lesions were benign after 20–47 months of clinical and radiologic surveillance. The sensitivity of MR alone was 95%, FDG‐PET alone was 57%, and fusion was 83%. The increase in PPV from 77% in MR alone to 98% when fused and the increase in specificity from 53% to 97% were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The false‐negative rate on FDG‐PET alone was 26.7%, and after fusion this number was reduced to 9%. FDG‐PET and MR fusions were helpful in selecting which lesion to biopsy, especially in women with multiple suspicious MR breast lesions.

[1]  L. Adler,et al.  F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography Imaging for Primary Breast Cancer and Loco-Regional Staging. , 2006, PET clinics.

[2]  M. Tatsumi,et al.  Effect of patients' being prone during FDG PET for the diagnosis of breast cancer. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  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.

[4]  Barry A Siegel,et al.  Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  A. Alavi,et al.  Standardized Uptake Values of Normal Breast Tissue with 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]Fluoro-d-glucose Positron Emission Tomography: Variations with Age, Breast Density, and Menopausal Status , 2006, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[6]  A. Padhani Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: Current status and future directions , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Prone MammoPET Acquisition Improves the Ability to Fuse MRI and PET Breast Scans , 2007, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[8]  Thomas Beier,et al.  Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T. , 2002, Radiology.

[9]  Wendy B DeMartini,et al.  Breast MRI for cancer detection and characterization: a review of evidence-based clinical applications. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[10]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Acetabular component migration in total hip arthroplasty using CT and a semiautomated program for volume merging. , 2002, Acta radiologica.

[11]  R L Wahl,et al.  Current status of PET in breast cancer imaging, staging, and therapy. , 2001, Seminars in roentgenology.

[12]  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.

[13]  Rachel F Brem,et al.  Breast‐Specific Gamma Imaging with 99mTc‐Sestamibi and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer—A Comparative Study , 2007, The breast journal.

[14]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  First results of a dedicated breast PET imager, BPET, using NaI(Tl) curve plate detectors , 2001, 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310).

[15]  Rachel F Brem,et al.  Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. , 2008, Radiology.

[16]  A. Alavi,et al.  Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG–PET in primary breast cancer , 2006, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[17]  R. Wahl,et al.  Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer , 2006, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[18]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  A Versatile Functional–Anatomic Image Fusion Method for Volume Data Sets , 2001, Journal of Medical Systems.

[19]  S. Lorda,et al.  A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer , 2007 .

[20]  N M Hylton,et al.  Challenges to interpretation of breast MRI , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[21]  Nola Hylton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Robert A. Smith,et al.  The evolving role of MRI in the detection and evaluation of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  C J Thompson,et al.  Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[24]  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.

[25]  C. Kuhl Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. , 2007, Radiology.

[26]  Carol H Lee Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. , 2004, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[27]  T. Helbich,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Improves Detection of Invasive Cancer, Preinvasive Cancer, and Premalignant Lesions during Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[28]  Ciprian Catana,et al.  Performance test of an LSO-APD detector in a 7-T MRI scanner for simultaneous PET/MRI. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[29]  Deepa Narayanan,et al.  High‐Resolution Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with Compression (“Positron Emission Mammography”) is Highly Accurate in Depicting Primary Breast Cancer , 2006, The breast journal.

[30]  M. Salvatore,et al.  Dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET/CT versus dynamic breast MRI of suspicious breast lesions. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[31]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Evaluation of a Semiautomatic 3D Fusion Technique Applied to Molecular Imaging and MRI Brain/Frame Volume Data Sets , 2003, Journal of Medical Systems.

[32]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. , 2007, Radiology.

[33]  Mathias K. Fehr,et al.  Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET , 2003, European Radiology.

[34]  M. Proschan,et al.  Randomized Trials of Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Primary Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Updated Results , 2005, American journal of clinical oncology.