A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography
- 588 Downloads
Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) have had a considerable impact on the detection of various malignancies. PET and PET/CT are minimally invasive methods that can provide whole-body imaging at one time. Therefore, an FDG-PET cancer screening program has been widely used in Japan. However, the breast cancer detection rate of FDG-PET cancer screening is relatively low. Therefore, FDG-PET screening is not recommended for breast cancer screening. Positron emission mammography (PEM) is a high-resolution molecular breast imaging technology. PEM can detect small breast cancers that cannot be detected on PET or PET/CT images due to limited spatial resolution. We have performed opportunistic breast cancer screening using PEM since 2011. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report regarding PEM breast cancer screening.
This study enrolled 265 women. PEM images were analyzed by agreement of 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians. The readers were given information from medical interview sheet. US findings were interpreted holistically. The number of participants, patient recall rate, further examination rate, and cancer detection rate by year were calculated.
The overall recall rate was 8.3 %; the work-up examination rate was 77.3 %, and cancer detection rate was 2.3 %. The positive predictive value of PEM was 27.3 %. Six cancers were found by PEM screening. Five were invasive cancers and one was ductal carcinoma in situ. Histological tumor sizes were reported in three cases: 0.7, 1.2, and 2 cm.
PEM screening appears to have potential for breast cancer screening.
KeywordsPositron emission mammography Breast cancer screening FDG-PET screening
- 2.The results of questionnaires. In: PET and PET. http://www.jcpet.jp/1-4-4C. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
- 15.Yamamoto Y, Tasaki Y, KuwadaY Ozawa Y, Katayama K, Kanemaki Y, et al. Positron emission mammography (PEM): reviewing standardized semiquantitative method. ANM. 2013;27:795–801.Google Scholar
- 20.Matsuda T, Marugame T, Kamo K, Katanoda K, Ajiki W, Sobue v, Japan Cancer Surveillance Research Group. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in based on data from 12 population-based cancer registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;2011(41):139–47. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyq169.Google Scholar
- 28.American College of Radiology national mammography database. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/National-Radiology-Data-Registry/National-Mammography-DB. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
- 29.Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, European Commission, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006.Google Scholar
- 30.The concept for future cancer screening program of our country. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2008/03/s0301-4.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
- 31.Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE, The J, Velasquez MV, Kahn S, et al. Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:23–36. doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1588-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2010;2008(299):2151–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151 (Erratum. In: JAMA; 303(15): 1482).Google Scholar