Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 130–137 | Cite as

A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography

  • Yayoi YamamotoEmail author
  • Youichiro Tasaki
  • Yukiko Kuwada
  • Yukihiko Ozawa
  • Tomio Inoue
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

PEM screening appears to have potential for breast cancer screening.

Keywords

Positron emission mammography Breast cancer screening FDG-PET screening 

References

  1. 1.
    Minamimoto R, Senda M, Terauchi T, Jinnouchi S, Inoue T, Iinuma T, et al. Analysis of various malignant neoplasms detected by FDG-PET cancer screening program: based on a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:45–54. doi: 10.1007/s12149-010-0428-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The results of questionnaires. In: PET and PET. http://www.jcpet.jp/1-4-4C. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
  3. 3.
    Minamimoto R, Senda M, Uno K, Jinnouchi S, Iinuma T, Ito K, et al. Performance profile of FDG-PET and PET/CT for cancer screening on the basis of a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:481–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kojima S, Zhou B, Teramukai S, Hara A, Kosaka N, Matsuo Y, et al. Cancer screening of healthy volunteers using whole-body 18F-FDG-PET scans: the Nishidai clinic study. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1842–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terauchi T, Murano T, Daisaki H, Kanou D, Shoda H, Kakinuma R, et al. Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:379–85. doi: 10.1007/s12149-008-0130-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ohuchi N, Yoshida K, Kimura M, Ouchi A, Kamioki S, Shiiba K, et al. Improved detection rate of early breast cancer in mass screening combined with mammography. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1993;84:807–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tozaki M, Isomoto I, Kojima Y, Kubota K, Kuroki Y, Ohnuki K, et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for screening and imaging diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:28–36. doi: 10.1007/s12282-014-0557-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bénard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:153–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:84–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avril N, Rosé CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3495–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12:309–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE. Berg WAInterpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:971–81. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, Narayanan D, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258:59–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1666–75. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.064345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:793–806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. 1995;75:2507–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:27–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grobner T. Gadolinium—a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2006;21:1104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kribben A, Witzke O, Hillen U, Barkhausen J, Daul AE, Erbel R. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1621–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.12.061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast. 2012;21:66–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, et al. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:260–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yamamoto Y, Ozawa Y, Kubouchi K, Nakamura S, Nakajima Y, Inoue I. Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:21–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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. 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. 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
  32. 32.
    Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, Quon A, Villalpando J, Dahlborn M, et al. Relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1238–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kumar R, Mitchell S, Alavi A. 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mavi A, Cermik TF, Urhan M, Puskulcu H, Basu S, Cucchiara AJ, et al. The effect of age, menopausal state, and breast density on (18)F-FDG uptake in normal glandular breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:347–52. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.068718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    International Commission of the International Commission on Radiological. Protection (ICRCP Publication 60). Ann ICRP. 1991;21:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yayoi Yamamoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Youichiro Tasaki
    • 1
  • Yukiko Kuwada
    • 1
  • Yukihiko Ozawa
    • 1
  • Tomio Inoue
    • 2
  1. 1.Yuai ClinicYokohama CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyYokohama City University School of MedicineYokohama CityJapan

Personalised recommendations