Advertisement

Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 59–68 | Cite as

Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental F18-FDG breast uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Francesco Bertagna
  • Giorgio Treglia
  • Emanuela Orlando
  • Lodovica Dognini
  • Luca Giovanella
  • Ramin Sadeghi
  • Raffaele Giubbini
Review

Abstract

This review aims to analyse the published data on the prevalence and clinical significance of breast incidental F18-FDG uptake detected by PET or PET/CT (BIU). A comprehensive computer literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases for studies on BIU published through July 2013 was performed. Pooled prevalence and malignancy risk of BIU were calculated. The literature search revealed 42 articles, and 17 were selected. One study was excluded because of data overlap but four additional studies were found screening the references. Finally, 20 articles were included in the systematic review and 13 were eligible for a meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of BIU on all scans was 0.4 % (95 % CI 0.23–0.61 %), the pooled prevalence on scans on female patients only was 0.82 % (95 % CI 0.51–1.2 %), the pooled risk of malignancy of BIU when further analysed was 48 % (95 % CI 38–58 %) and the pooled risk of malignancy of BIU with histological examination was 60 % (95 % CI 53–66 %). The most frequent malignant lesion detected was infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Despite being rare, the identification of BIU frequently signals the presence of an unsuspected subclinical lesion, which differs from the indicated reason for which the patient was initially scanned, and the risk of malignancy is very high.

Keywords

Breast incidental uptake FDG PET/CT Breast tumours 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    von Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G, Ponti A, Malila N, Arbyn M, et al. Cancer screening in the European Union. Report on the implementation of the council recommendation on cancer screening—first report. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:55–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertagna F, Treglia G, Piccardo A, Giovannini E, Bosio G, Biasiotto G, et al. FDG-PET/CT thyroid incidentalomas: a wide retrospective analysis in three Italian centres on the significance of focal uptake and SUV value. Endocrine. 2013;43:678–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertagna F, Treglia G, Piccardo A, Giubbini R. Diagnostic and clinical significance of F-18-FDG-PET/CT thyroid incidentalomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:3866–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hwang I, Chong A, Jung SI, Hwang EC, Kim SO, Kang TW, et al. Is further evaluation needed for incidental focal uptake in the prostate in 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography images? Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:140–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chopra A, Ford A, De Noronha R, Matthews S. Incidental findings on positron emission tomography/CT scans performed in the investigation of lung cancer. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e229–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill RS, Perry T, Abele JT, Bédard EL, Schiller D. The clinical significance of incidental intra-abdominal findings on positron emission tomography performed to investigate pulmonary nodules. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:25.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Treglia G, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, Leccisotti L, Meduri GM, Spitilli MG, et al. Clinical significance of incidental focal colorectal (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: our experience and a review of the literature. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:174–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyun SH, Choi JY, Lee KH, Choe YS, Kim BT. Incidental focal F18-FDG uptake in the pituitary gland: clinical significance and differential diagnostic criteria. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:547–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bakheet SM, Powe J, Ezzat A, Bakri Y. Incidental second primary in the breast detected by F-18 FDG positron emission tomography scan. Clin Nucl Med. 1998;23:616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nguyen BD. Incidental PET/CT detection of thyroid and breast cancer during recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32:59–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McEachen JC, Kuo PH. Male primary breast cancer found on FDG-PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2008;33:630–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clapp AJ, Peller PJ, Subramaniam RM. AJR teaching file: incidental breast cancer detected with F18-FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:WS83–85.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Makis W, Ciarallo A, Hickeson M, Derbekyan V. Rapidly growing complex fibroadenoma with surrounding ductal hyperplasia mimics breast malignancy on serial F-18 FDG PET/CT imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:576–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramani SK, Basu S, Parmar V, Gujral S, Bibte S. Second primary malignancy of breast in a patient of gastrointestinal stromal tumor presenting as fluoro-deoxyglucose-avid breast incidentaloma in fluoro-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Ther. 2011;7:387–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishimori T, Patel PV, Wahl RL. Detection of unexpected additional primary malignancies with PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:752–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beatty JS, Williams HT, Aldridge BA, Hughes MP, Vasudeva VS, Gucwa AL, et al. Incidental PET/CT findings in the cancer patient: how should they be managed? Surgery. 2009;146:274–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beatty JS, Williams HT, Gucwa AL, Hughes MP, Vasudeva VS, Aldridge BA, et al. The predictive value of incidental PET/CT findings suspicious for breast cancer in women with non-breast malignancies. Am J Surg. 2009;198:495–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Litmanovich D, Gourevich K, Israel O, Gallimidi Z. Unexpected foci of F18-FDG uptake in the breast detected by PET/CT: incidence and clinical significance. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1558–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chung A, Schoder H, Sampson M, Morrow M, Port E. Incidental breast lesions identified by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2119–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kang BJ, Lee JH, Yoo IeR, Kim SH, Choi JJ, Jeong SH, et al. Clinical significance of incidental finding of focal activity in the breast at F18-FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:341–347.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chae EY, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Kim HJ, Oh HY, et al. Analysis of incidental focal hypermetabolic uptake in the breast as detected by F18-FDG PET/CT: clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:530–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim MY, Cho N, Chang JM, Yun BL, Bae MS, Kang KW, et al. Mammography and ultrasonography evaluation of unexpected focal 18F-FDG uptakes in breast on PET/CT. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:249–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dunne R, O’Mahony D, Wilson G, McDermott R, O’Keeffe S. The role of the breast radiologist in evaluation of breast incidentalomas detected on fluorodeoxyglucose (18 F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Br J Radiol. 2013. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20130034.
  26. 26.
    Lim S, Lee EH, Park JM, Chang YW, Kim HH, Jeong SH. Role of combined BI-RADS assessment using mammography and sonography for evaluation of incidental hypermetabolic lesions in the breast on 18F-FDG PET–CT. Acta Radiol. 2013. doi: 10.1177/0284185113492453.
  27. 27.
    Agress H Jr, Cooper BZ. Detection of clinically unexpected malignant and premalignant tumors with whole-body FDG PET: histopathologic comparison. Radiology. 2004;230:417–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Korn RL, Yost AM, May CC, Kovalsky ER, Orth KM, Layton TA, et al. Unexpected focal hypermetabolic activity in the breast: significance in patients undergoing F18-FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:81–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang G, Lau EW, Shakher R, Rischin D, Ware RE, Hong E, et al. How do oncologists deal with incidental abnormalities on whole-body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT? Cancer. 2007;109:117–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dockery KF, Puri S, Qazi R, Davis D. FDG-PET on the trail of an unsuspected primary malignancy in the breast. Clin Nucl Med. 2008;33:175–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:267–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast Cancer. 2011;2:BINV1–14; IBC1; M532.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dong C, Hemminki K. Second primary neoplasms among 53,159 haematolymphoproliferative malignancy patients in Sweden, 1958–1996: a search for common mechanisms. Br J Cancer. 2001;85:997–1005.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ueno M, Muto T, Oya M, Ota H, Azekura K, Yamaguchi T. Multiple primary cancer: an experience at the Cancer Institute Hospital with special reference to colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2003;8:162–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McDonough MD, DePeri ER, Mincey BA. The role of positron emission tomographic imaging in breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2004;6:62–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Shen C, Kalker T, Kotzerke J, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1317–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, Schelling M, Weber W, Jänicke F, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by F18-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:9–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Chiesa C, Pascali C, Bogni A, et al. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and postoperative histopathology, hormone receptor status, thymidine labeling index and p53 in primary breast cancer: a preliminary observation. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25:1429–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Bertagna
    • 1
  • Giorgio Treglia
    • 2
  • Emanuela Orlando
    • 3
  • Lodovica Dognini
    • 3
  • Luca Giovanella
    • 2
  • Ramin Sadeghi
    • 4
  • Raffaele Giubbini
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Brescia and Spedali Civili di BresciaBresciaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT CenterOncology Institute of Southern SwitzerlandBellinzonaSwitzerland
  3. 3.1st Division of RadiologySpedali Civili di BresciaBresciaItaly
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine Research CenterMashhad University of Medical SciencesMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations