Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 678–686 | Cite as

F-18 fluoride uptake in primary breast cancer

  • Ismet Sarikaya
  • Prem Sharma
  • Ali Sarikaya
Original Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Bone-specific radiotracers are known to accumulate in breast lesions. Tc-99m diphosphonates have been widely studied in differentiating breast lesions. In this retrospective study, we aimed to assess the uptake of the bone-specific PET radiotracer, F-18 fluoride (NaF), in primary breast cancers to determine its sensitivity and to identify any differences in NaF uptake between calcified and non-calcified tumors, histological subtypes, and patients with or without axillary lymphadenopathy.

Methods

NaF positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images of 69 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were reviewed. F-18 fluoride uptake as maximum standardized uptake value (NaF SUVmax) was measured in the primary tumor, enlarged axillary lymph nodes and contralateral normal/non-tumoral breast tissue. Low-dose CT images were reviewed to locate the primary tumor and grossly assess its calcification and check for ipsilateral axillary lymphadenopathy. Whole body NaF PET/CT images were reviewed to search for bone metastases. Eighteen patients also underwent F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT study.

Results

The primary breast tumor was clearly seen as focal or diffuse uptake on NaF PET images in 27 of 69 patients (39%) (mean NaF SUVmax: 2.0 ± 1.0). In the rest, there was only mild bilateral diffuse breast uptake. When analyzing images per histological subtype (42 patients, 43 tumors), 14 of 31 invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) (45%) and 3 of 4 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were visible on PET. Five invasive lobular carcinomas, 2 invasive mammary carcinomas, and 1 mucinous carcinoma were not visible on PET. Mean NaF SUVmax of contralateral normal/non-tumoral breast tissue was 1.0 ± 0.4. There was no significant difference in mean NaF SUVmax of primary tumor in cases with and without calcification or with and without axillary lymphadenopathy (p 0.892 and 0.957). There was no correlation between NaF SUVmax and FDG SUVmax values of the primary tumors (r 0.072, p 0.797, Pearson correlation).

Conclusion

NaF PET has relatively low sensitivity in detecting breast cancer. However, abnormal breast uptake on NaF PET requires further evaluation. F-18 fluoride uptake in the primary breast tumor does not seem to be correlated with axillary lymphadenopathy (metastasis potential), gross tumor calcification or metabolic activity of the tumor.

Keywords

Breast cancer Primary breast tumor PET/CT F-18 fluoride NaF 

References

  1. 1.
    Berg GR. Kalisher L. Osmond JD. Pendergrass HP, Potsaid MS. Technetium-99m diphosphonate concentration in primary breast carcinoma. Radiology. 1973;109:393–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ross McDougall I, Pistcnma DA. Concentration of technetium-99m diphoshonate in breast tissue. Radiology 1974;112:655–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schmitt GH, Holmes RA, Isitman AT, Hensley GT, Lewis JD. A proposed mechanism for 99mTc-labeled polyphosphate and diphosphonate uptake by human breast tissue. Radiology. 1974;112:733–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khayat G, Achram M, Rizk G. The role of breast scintigraphy in detecting breast masses. Br J Radiol. 1985;58:721–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raskin MM, Zand LC, Serafini AN. Scintigraphy of breast masses. Radiology. 1975;114:465–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serafini AN, Raskin MM, Zard LC, Watson DD. Radionuclide breast scanning in carcinoma of the breast. J Nuc Med 1974;15:1149–1152.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee JK, Kao CH, Sun SS. Technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate scintimammography for evaluation of palpable breast masses. Oncol Rep. 1999;6:659–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piccolo S, Lastoria S, Mainolfi C, Muto P. Bazzicalupo L, Salvatore M. Technetium-99m-MDP scintamammography to image primary breast cancer. J Nuc Med 1995:36:718–724.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Piccolo S, Lastoria S, Muto P, Bazzicalupo L, Bartiromo A, Salvatore M. Scintimammography with 99mTc-MDP in the detection of primary breast cancer. Q J Nucl Med. 1997;41:225–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turhal NS, Dane F, Dede F, Gumus M, Yumuk PF, Cakalagaoglu F, et al. 99 m-Tc-MDP-Scintimammography in the evaluation of breast masses or tumor angiogenesis. Anticancer Res. 2004;24:1999–2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atasever T, Ozdemir A, Turkölmez S, Altinok M, Isik S. Tc-99m MDP scintimammography in palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions: comparison with mammographic probability of malignancy. Anticancer Res. 1999;19:3601–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burnett KR, Lyons KP, Brown WT. Uptake of osteotropic radionuclides in the breast. Semin Nucl Med. 1984;14:48–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Worsley DF, Lentle BC. Uptake of technetium-99m MDP in primary amyloidosis with a review of the mechanisms of soft tissue localization of bone seeking radiopharmaceuticals. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1612–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uno K, Uchida Y, Sakata S, Minoshima S, Okada J, Yoshikawa K, et al. Visualization of the female breast in bone scintigraphy. Kaku Igaku. 1992;29:1201–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demetri-Lewis A, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Breast calcifications: the focal group. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:W325-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gülsün M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyürek M. Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to breast imaging reporting and data system criteria and Le Gal’s classification. Eur J Radiol. 2003;47:227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haka AS, Shafer-Peltier KE, Fitzmaurice M, Crowe J, Dasari RR, Feld MS. Identifying microcalcifications in benign and malignant breast lesions by probing differences in their chemical composition using Raman spectroscopy. Cancer Res. 2002;62:5375–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker R, Rogers KD, Shepherd N, Stone N. New relationships between breast microcalcifications and cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010;103:1034–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van den Wyngaert T, Strobel K, Kampen WU, Kuwert T, van der Bruggen W, Mohan HK, EANM Bone and Joint Committee and the Oncology Committee et al. The EANM practice guidelines for bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1723–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blau M, Ganatra R, Bender MA. 18 F-fluoride for bone imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 1972;2:31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grynpas MD. Fluoride effects on bone crystals. J Bone Miner Res. 1990;5(Suppl 1):S169–75.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hawkins RA, Choi Y, Huang SC, Hoh CK, Dahlbom M, Schiepers C, et al. Evaluation of the skeletal kinetics of fluorine-18-fluoride ion with PET. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:633–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cox RF, Morgan MP. Microcalcifications in breast cancer: lessons from physiological mineralization. Bone. 2013;53(2):437–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wilson GH 3rd, Gore JC, Yankeelov TE, Barnes S, Peterson TE, True JM, et al. An approach to breast cancer diagnosis via PET imaging of microcalcifications using (18)F-NaF. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jang BS. MicroSPECT and MicroPET imaging of small animals for drug development. Toxicol Res. 2013;29:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jan ML, Ni YC, Chuang KS, Liang HC, Fu YK. Detection-ability evaluation of the PEImager for positron emission mammography applications. Phys Med. 2006;21(Suppl 1):109–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dai D, Song X, Wang M, Li L, Ma W, Xu W, et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance of three-dimensional positron emission mammography versus whole body positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017;2017:5438395.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5438395.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsuchiya A, Kanno M, Hara K, Kimijima I, Abe R. The evaluation of mammographic as biological malignancy in breast cancer. Fukushima J Med Sci. 1996;42:17–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holme TC, Reis MM, Thompson A, Robertson A, Parham D, Hickman P, et al. Is mammographic microcalcification of biological significance? Eur J Surg Oncol. 1993;19:250–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morgan MP, Cooke MM, Christopherson PA, Westfall PR, McCarthy GM. Calcium hydroxyapatite promotes mitogenesis and matrix metalloproteinase expression in human breast cancer cell lines. Mol Carcinog. 2001;32:111–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cox RF, Hernandez-Santana A, Ramdass S, McMahon G, Harmey JH, Morgan MP. Microcalcifications in breast cancer: novel insights into the molecular mechanism and functional consequence of mammary mineralisation. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:525–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Grady S, Morgan MP. Microcalcifications in breast cancer: from pathophysiology to diagnosis and prognosis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2018;1869:310–20.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Qi X, Chen A, Zhang P, Zhang W, Cao X, Xiao C. Mammographic calcification can predict outcome in women with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery. Oncol Lett. 2017;14:79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Månsson E, Bergkvist L, Christenson G, Persson C, Wärnberg F. Mammographic casting-type calcifications is not a prognostic factor in unifocal small invasive breast cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:670–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rauch GM, Hobbs BP, Kuerer HM, Scoggins ME, Benveniste AP, Park YM, et al. Microcalcifications in 1657 patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation with clinical, histopathologic, biologic features, and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:482–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tabar L, Tony Chen HH, Amy Yen MF, Tot T, Tung TH, Chen LS, et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101:1745–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shin SU, Lee J, Kim JH, Kim WH, Song SE, Chu A, et al. Gene expression profiling of calcifications in breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7:11427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tabar L, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, Dean PB, et al. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10–14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study. Lancet. 2000;355:429–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of MedicineKuwait UniversityKuwait CityKuwait
  2. 2.Statistics Section, Dasman Diabetes InstituteKuwait CityKuwait
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineTrakya University Faculty of MedicineEdirneTurkey

Personalised recommendations