Comparison of FDG PET and MRI for evaluating the tumor extent of breast cancer and the impact of FDG PET on the systemic staging and prognosis of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving therapy
- First Online:
- 153 Downloads
FDG PET has not yet found a role in the clinical evaluation of the tumor extent of breast cancer. FDG PET has been reported to be useful for evaluating the prognoses of breast cancer patients with more accuracy than conventional imaging modalities. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of FDG PET and MRI for the preoperative assessment of the tumor extent of breast cancer, for evaluating the impact of FDG PET on systemic staging, and also for predicting the prognosis of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving therapy.
The study was a prospective series of 23 breasts with breast cancer that underwent both FDG PET and MRI before surgery. Systemic staging with FDG PET was also performed. The correlation between the results of these examinations and histological findings was thus examined. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the tumors was investigated in association with the patient prognoses.
When evaluating the local tumor extent, the accuracy of FDG PET (43.5%) was significantly lower than that of MRI (91%) (P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FDG PET regarding the nodal status were 60, 94, and 87%, respectively. No patients demonstrated any distant metastasis, whereas FDG PET gave a false positive in one patient. The mean follow-up period was 61 months. The SUVmax value of the worse prognosis patient group was significantly higher than that of the good prognosis patient group (P = 0.032).
FDG PET is not a breast imaging modality for evaluating the local tumor extent, but it is useful for predicting the prognoses of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving therapy.
KeywordsPDG PET Breast-conserving therapy Staging Prognosis MRI
- 1.NIH Consensus Conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 1991;265:391–5.Google Scholar
- 6.Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
- 9.Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Guhlmann A, Santjohaser C, Horster T, Nuessle K, et al. Fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2 fluoro-D-glucose PET in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with the standard staging procedures. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:351–8.Google Scholar
- 12.Oshida M, Uno K, Suzuki M, Nagashima T, Hashimoto H, Yagata H, et al. Predicting the prognoses of breast carcinoma patients with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-fluoro[18F]-D-glucose. Cancer. 1998;82:2227–34.Google Scholar
- 13.Inoue T, Yutani K, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Shiba E, Noguchi S. Preoperative evaluation of prognosis in breast cancer patients by [18F]2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004;130:273–8.Google Scholar
- 14.Cermik TF, Mavi A, Basu S, Alavi A. Impact of FDG PET on the preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;35(3):475–83.Google Scholar
- 15.American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston; 2003.Google Scholar
- 21.Tse NY, Hoh CK, Hawkins RA, Zinner MJ, Dahlbom M, Choi Y, Maddahi J, Brunicardi FC, Phelps ME, Glaspy. The application of positron emission tomographic imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose to the evaluation of breast disease. Ann Surg. 1992;216:27–34.Google Scholar
- 22.Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Chiesa C, Bogri A, Decise D, et al. Association between F-18 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
- 25.Lovrics PJ, Chen V, Coates G, Cornacchi SD, Goldsmith CH, Law C, et al. A prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography scanning sentinel lymph node biopsy, and standard axillary dissection for axillary staging in patients with early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11:846–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Eubank WB, Mankoff D, Bhattacharya M, Gralow J, Linden H, Ellis G, et al. Impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:479–86.Google Scholar
- 29.Monn DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DH, Glaspy JA, Phelps ME, Hoh CK. Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:431–5.Google Scholar
- 30.Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, Mavi A, Cermik T, Czerniecki B, et al. Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters. Cancer. 2008;112:995–1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar