European Radiology

, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 1651–1656 | Cite as

Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions

  • C. WalterEmail author
  • K. Scheidhauer
  • A. Scharl
  • U.-J. Goering
  • P. Theissen
  • H. Kugel
  • T. Krahe
  • U. Pietrzyk


Dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) mammography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) of the breast were directly compared preoperatively in suspicious breast lesions. Forty-two breast lesions in 40 patients were examined with a three-dimensional dynamic MR imaging series and FDG-PET. The MR and PET examinations were evaluated separately and the results were compared with the histological findings. The sensitivity and specificity of each method were calculated. The diagnostic value of both modalities as single diagnostic tool and in combination was investigated. Nineteen malignant and 23 benign breast lesions were proven histologically. Magnetic resonance mammography and FDG-PET showed a sensitivity of 89 and 63%, respectively. The specificity was 74 and 91%, respectively. The combination of both imaging methods decreased the not-required biopsies from 55 to 17%. Only one false-negative finding—a patient pre-treated with chemotherapy—was observed in both methods. The combination of MR mammography and FDG-PET can help to decrease biopsies of benign breast lesions. Because of their high cost, these modalities should only be used in problematic cases to either rule out or to demonstrate malignancy. The best diagnostic strategy is achieved using MR mammography first. If the diagnosis is still questionable, FDG-PET can be performed.


MR imaging FDG-PET Breast cancer 


  1. 1.
    Parker Sl, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA (1997) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 47:5–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fournier D von, Anton HW, Junkermann H et al (1993) Brustkrebsscreening. Radiologe 33: 227Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wald N, Chamberlain J, Hackshaw A (1994) Consensus conference on breast cancer screening. Oncology 51:380–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stavros AT, Thickmann D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA (1995) Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196:123–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ariga R, Bloom K, Reddy VB, Kluskens L, Francescatti D, Dowlat K, Siziopikou P, Gattuso P (2002) Fine-needle aspiration of clinically suspicious palpable breast masses with histopathologic correlation. Am J Surg 184:410–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kinkel K, Hylton NM (2001) Challenges to interpretation of breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:830–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA (1998) PET in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 28:290−302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1087–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheidhauer K, Scharl A, Pietrzyk U et al. (1996) Qualitative (18-F)-FDG PET in primary breast cancer: clinical relevance and practicability. Eur J Nucl Med 23:618–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, Hochman MG, Kuhl CK, Kaiser WA, Weinreb JC (2001) Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:889–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhl CK, Mielcarek P, Klaschik S et al. (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: Are signal time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pietrzyk U, Scheidhauer K, Scharl A, Schuster A, Schicha H (1995) Presurgical visualization of primary breast carcinoma with PET emission and transmission imaging. J Nucl Med 36:1882–1884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL (1995) Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-anlysis. J Am Med Assoc 273:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown ML, Houn F, Sickels EA, Kessler LG (1995) Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol 16:1373–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tardivon AA, Guinebretiere JM, Dromain C, Vanel D (2002) Imaging and management of nonpalpable lesions of the breast. Eur J Radiol 42:2–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Bick U, Bradley WG Jr, Bone B, Casselman J, Coulthard A, Fischer U, Muller-Schimpfle M, Oellinger H, Patt R, Teubner J, Friedrich M, Newstead G, Holland R, Schauer A, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Waisman J, Wernecke KD (2001) International investigation of breast MRI: results of a multicentre study (11 sites) concerning diagnostic parameters for contrast-enhanced MRI based on 519 histopathologically correlated lesions. Eur Radiol 11:531–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henry-Tillman RS, Harms SE, Westbrook KC, Korourian S, Klimberg VS (1999) Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in determining breast as a source of unknown metastatic lymphadenopathy. Am J Surg 178:496–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL et al. (1993) MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 187:493–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forrai G, Polgar C, Zana K, Riedl E, Fodor J, Nemeth G, Fornet B (2001) The role of STIR MRI sequence in the evaluation of the breast following conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Neoplasm 48:7–11Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orel SG (1999) Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identified at MR imaging of the breast: Are time–signal intensity curves an accurate predictor? Radiology 211:5–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoffmann U, Brix G, Knopp MV, Hess T, Lorenz WJ (1995) Pharmacokinetic mapping of the breast: a new method for dynamic MR mammography. Magn Reson Med 33:506–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prats E, Aisa F, Abos MD et al. (1999) Mammography and 99m Tc-MIBI scintimammography in suspected breast cancer. J Nucl Med 40:296–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tolmos J, Cutrone JA, Wang B et al. (1998) Scinitmammography analysis of nonpalpable breast lesions previously identified by conventional mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:846–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler S et al. (1997) Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med 38:1186–1191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brix G, Henze M, Knopp MV, Lucht R, Doll J, Junkermann H, Hawighorst H, Haberkorn U (2001) Comparison of pharmacokinetic MRI an (18 F) flurodeocyglucose PET in the diagnosis of breast cancer: initial experience. Eur Radiol 11:2058–2070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pietrzyk U, Herholz K, Fink G, Jacobs A, Mielke R, Slansky J, Würker M, Heiss WD (1994) An interactive technique for three-dimensional image registration: validation for PET, SPECT MRI, and CT brain studies. J Nucl Med 35:2011–2018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sickels EA (1991) Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179:463–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sickels EA (1994) Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 192:439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Walter
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • K. Scheidhauer
    • 2
  • A. Scharl
    • 3
  • U.-J. Goering
    • 3
  • P. Theissen
    • 2
  • H. Kugel
    • 1
  • T. Krahe
    • 1
  • U. Pietrzyk
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.Department of GynaecologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  4. 4.Max-Planck-Institut für Neurologische ForschungCologneGermany
  5. 5.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyKrankenhaus der Barmherzigen BrüderTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations