Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG–PET in primary breast cancer

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

 

The present study was aimed to determine the clinicopathologic factors that predict false negative (FN) PET results in these patients.

Methods

A total of 116 breast lesions in 111 patients (pre-menopausal 45; perimenopausal 15; post-menopausal 51) with known or suspicious of breast cancer who underwent FDG–PET scans for staging, were included in this study. The median age was 52±11 years (range 32–79 years). All PET studies results were correlated with follow-up surgical pathology results. A cut off value of 2.5 was considered for positive or negative PET results. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with FN results.

Results

Of 116 breast lesions, 85 were malignant and 31 were benign on histopathology. Of the 85 malignant lesions, 41 were true positive (TP) and 44 were FN. Among the 31 benign lesions, 30 were true negative and one was false positive. There was significant difference in the tumor size (p=0.003) and tumor grade (p=0.001) in patients with TP and FN PET results. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that tumor size (≤10 mm) and low tumor grade were independently associated with FN results. No significant relationship of FN PET results was found with age, menopausal status, tumor type, c-erbB-2, estrogen and progesterone receptors, sentinel lymph node or distant metastasis, parenchymal density and multifocality of primary breast tumor.

Conclusion

In present study, tumor size and tumor grade are independent factors that predict FDG–PET results. Smaller tumors (≤10 mm) and low-grade tumors are strong predictor of FN FDG–PET results.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, Feuer EF, Thun MJ, 2005 Cancer statistics, 2005 CA Cancer J Clin 55:10–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www. seer. cancer. gov) SEER Statistics Database: Incidence – SEE (1973–2000), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch

  3. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kesely CA, Key CR, Linver MN., (1998). Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico Radiology 209:511–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baines CJ, Miller AB, Wall C, McFarlane DV, Simor IS, Jong R, Shapiro BJ, Audet L, Petitclerc M, Ouimet-Oliva D, 1986 Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a preliminary report from five centersRadiology. 160:295–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S, 1993 Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1644–1656

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Frisell J, Klund G, Hellstrom L, 1991 Randomized study of mammography screening: preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial Breast Cancer Res Treat 18:49–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH, 2002 Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations Radiology 225:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, 2005 Digital mammography Radiology 234:353–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH, 2002 Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations Radiology 225:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Morrow M, 2004 Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: primum non nocere J Am Coll Surg 198:240–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumar R, Alavi A, 2004 Fluorodeoxyglucose–PET in the management of breast cancer Radiol Clin North Am 42:1113–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wahl RL, Cody RL, Hutchins GD, Mudgett EE, 1991 Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma: initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose Radiology 179:765–770

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Adler LP, Crowe JP, al-Kaisi NK, Sunshine JL, 1993 Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET Radiology 187:743–750

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W., Bense S, Weber W, Ziegler S, Graeff H, Schwaiger M. 2000 Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 18:3495–502

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, Schelling M, Weber W, Janicke F, Nathrath W, Schwaiger M, 2001 Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med 42:9–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Shen C, Kalker T, Kotzerke J, Dankerl A, Glatting G, Reske S, Mattfeldt T., 2002 FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:1317–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E, van Der Grope P, van Diest PJ, Comans EF, Joshi U, Semenza GL, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Molthoff CF, 2002 Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 20:379–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Buck AK, Schirrmeister H, Mattfeldt T, Reske SN, 2004 Biological characterisation of breast cancer by means of PET Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(Suppl1):S80–S87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler SI, et al., 1997 Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis J Nucl Med 38:1186–1191

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Torizuka T, Zasadny KR, Recker B, Wahl RL, 1998 Untreated primary lung and breast cancers: correlation between F-18 FDG kinetic rate constants and findings of in vitro studies Radiology 207:767–774

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee FY, Yu J, Chang SS, Fawwaz R, Parisien MV, 2004 Diagnostic value and limitations of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for cartilaginous tumors of bone J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:2677–2685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Borgwardt L, Hojgaard L, Carstensen H, Dose J, Weber W, Laubenbacher C, Romer W, Janicke F, Schwaiger M, 2005 Increased fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) uptake in childhood CNS tumors is correlated with malignancy grade: a study with FDG positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging coregistration and image fusion. J Clin Oncol 23:3030–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Chiesa C, Pascali C, Bogni A, Decise D, De Sanctis V, Greco M, Daidone MG, Bombardieri E., 1998 Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and postoperative histopathology, hormone receptor status, thymidine labelling index and p53 in primary breast cancer: a preliminary observation. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1429–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Public Health Services Research Grant M01-RR00040 from NIH. Rakesh Kumar, MD, was financially supported by UICC (International Union Against Cancer) Geneva, Switzerland under ACSBI fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rakesh Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, R., Chauhan, A., Zhuang, H. et al. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG–PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 98, 267–274 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9159-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9159-2

Keywords

Navigation