Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Distribution pattern of FDG uptake using ring-type dedicated breast PET in comparison to whole-body PET/CT scanning in invasive breast cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the incidence of rim uptake (RU) or multifocal uptake (MU) by invasive breast cancers on a ring-type dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) scanner compared with whole-body PET (wbPET) scanner imaging and to correlate uptake patterns with pathological features and prognosis.

Methods

Between 2009 and 2011, 76 lesions in 74 patients with primary invasive breast cancers were included. Each patient underwent dbPET and wbPET scanning on the same day after administration of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). The images were evaluated to identify specific uptake patterns (RU and MU). Their association with pathological characteristics and prognosis was analyzed.

Results

On dbPET, RU and MU patterns were observed in 18 lesions (24%) and 28 lesions (37%), respectively. On wbPET, RU and MU patterns were observed in six lesions (8%) and 17 lesions (22%), respectively. Lesions with RU on dbPET were of higher grade than lesions without RU (P = 0.024) and a higher Ki-67 index (mean; 31% vs. 18%, P = 0.015). They tended to be triple-negative (33% vs. 12%, P = 0.046) and less likely to be luminal A subtype (17% vs. 47%, P = 0.020). On wbPET, however, no significant differences in these markers were seen between RU and non-RU. The MU pattern did not correlate with pathological characteristics in either scanner. Lesions with RU or MU were not significantly associated with disease-free survival.

Conclusions

DbPET can identify detailed FDG distribution patterns of breast cancer better than wbPET. Breast cancer with RU on dbPET was associated with higher grade and triple-negative subtype.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:10869–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Prat A, Perou CM. Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2011;5:5–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Romero Q, Bendahl PO, Klintman M, Loman N, Ingvar C, Rydén L, et al. Ki67 proliferation in core biopsies versus surgical samples—a model for neo-adjuvant breast cancer studies. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:341.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:8418–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Groheux D, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266:388–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bowen SL, Wu Y, Chaudhari AJ, Fu L, Packard NJ, Burkett GW, et al. Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1401–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Koolen BB, Vogel WV, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Loo CE, Rutgers EJ, Valdes Olmos RA. Molecular imaging in breast cancer: from whole-body PET/CT to dedicated breast PET. J Oncol. 2012;2012:438647.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Iima M, Nakamoto Y, Kanao S, Sugie T, Ueno T, Kawada M, et al. Clinical performance of two dedicated PET scanners for breast imaging: initial evaluation. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1534–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koyasu S, Nakamoto Y, Kikuchi M, Suzuki K, Hayashida K, Itoh K, et al. Prognostic value of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters including visual evaluation in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:851–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Miyake KK, Nakamoto Y, Mikami Y, Tanaka S, Higashi T, Tadamura E, et al. The predictive value of preoperative (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET for postoperative recurrence in patients with localized primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:4664–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Miyake KK, Matsumoto K, Inoue M, Nakamoto Y, Kanao S, Oishi T, et al. Performance evaluation of a new dedicated breast PET scanner using NEMA NU4-2008 standards. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1198–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Masumoto N, Kadoya T, Sasada S, Emi A, Arihiro K, Okada M. Intratumoral heterogeneity on dedicated breast positron emission tomography predicts malignancy grade of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171:315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Broome DR. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis associated with gadolinium based contrast agents: a summary of the medical literature reporting. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66(2):230–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morris EA, Comstock CE, Lee CH, et al. ACR BI-RADS® magnetic resonance imaging. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013

  18. Jimenez RE, Wallis T, Visscher DW. Centrally necrotizing carcinomas of the breast: a distinct histologic subtype with aggressive clinical behavior. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:331–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yu L, Yang W, Cai X, Shi D, Fan Y, Lu H. Centrally necrotizing carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathological analysis of 33 cases indicating its basal-like phenotype and poor prognosis. Histopathology. 2010;57:193–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hasebe T, Tsuda H, Hirohashi S, Shimosato Y, Iwai M, Imoto S, et al. Fibrotic focus in invasive ductal carcinoma: an indicator of high tumor aggressiveness. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1996;87:385–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Van den Eynden GG, Colpaert CG, Couvelard A, Pezzella F, Dirix LY, Vermeulen PB, et al. A fibrotic focus is a prognostic factor and a surrogate marker for hypoxia and (lymph)angiogenesis in breast cancer: review of the literature and proposal on the criteria of evaluation. Histopathology. 2007;51:440–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahmed S, Sami A, Xiang J. HER2-directed therapy: current treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:101–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Petrelli F, Coinu A, Borgonovo K, Cabiddu M, Ghilardi M, Lonati V, et al. The value of platinum agents as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144:223–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Mami Iima from Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine of Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine for the excellent and knowledgeable support. We also thank Dr. Libby Cone from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan, and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (C:22591329).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoinkawaharacho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan

    Rena Sakaguchi, Masako Kataoka, Kanae K. Miyake, Yuji Nakamoto & Kaori Togashi

  2. Department of Radiology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, 2-1-1 Minatojikaminamicho, Chou-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0047, Japan

    Shotaro Kanao

  3. Department of Breast Surgery, Kansai Medical University Hospital, 2-3-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1191, Japan

    Tomohatru Sugie

  4. Department of Breast Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Shogoinkawaharacho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan

    Masakazu Toi

  5. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan

    Yoshiki Mikami

Authors
  1. Rena Sakaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masako Kataoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shotaro Kanao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kanae K. Miyake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuji Nakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tomohatru Sugie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Masakazu Toi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yoshiki Mikami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kaori Togashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masako Kataoka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work was supported by Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan, and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (C:22591329).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakaguchi, R., Kataoka, M., Kanao, S. et al. Distribution pattern of FDG uptake using ring-type dedicated breast PET in comparison to whole-body PET/CT scanning in invasive breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med 33, 570–578 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01364-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01364-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation