Breast Cancer

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 24–32 | Cite as

Molecular imaging using PET for breast cancer

  • Hiroaki Kurihara
  • Chikako Shimizu
  • Yasuji Miyakita
  • Masayuki Yoshida
  • Akinobu Hamada
  • Yousuke Kanayama
  • Kan Yonemori
  • Jun Hashimoto
  • Hitomi Tani
  • Makoto Kodaira
  • Mayu Yunokawa
  • Harukaze Yamamoto
  • Yasuyoshi Watanabe
  • Yasuhiro Fujiwara
  • Kenji Tamura
Special Feature The way to the next generation molecular diagnostics
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Molecular imaging can visualize the biological processes at the molecular and cellular levels in vivo using certain tracers for specific molecular targets. Molecular imaging of breast cancer can be performed with various imaging modalities, however, positron emission tomography (PET) is a sensitive and non-invasive molecular imaging technology and this review will focus on PET molecular imaging of breast cancer, such as FDG-PET, FLT-PET, hormone receptor PET, and anti-HER2 PET.

Keywords

Breast cancer PET Molecular imaging Molecular target therapy HER2 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Masami Kawamoto for providing appropriate PEM images. The authors thank Mr. Takayuki Namma and the staff of Sumitomo Heavy Industries for supporting 64Cu-DOTA-trastuzumab/cetuximab production, and Mr. Akira Hirayama and the staff of GE Healthcare for optimizing PET/CT scan. We also thank Ms. Riako Onoe for secretarial support during this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Mankoff DA. A definition of molecular imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:18N–21N.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrett T, Brechbiel M, Bernardo M, Choyke PL. MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:235–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Padhani AR, Leach MO. Antivascular cancer treatments: functional assessments by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:324–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haddadin IS, McIntosh A, Meisamy S, Corum C, Styczynski Snyder AL, Powell NJ, et al. Metabolite quantification and high-field MRS in breast cancer. NMR Biomed. 2009;22:65–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meisamy S, Bolan PJ, Baker EH, Bliss RL, Gulbahce E, Everson LI, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of locally advanced breast cancer: predicting response with in vivo (1)H MR spectroscopy—a pilot study at 4 T. Radiology. 2004;233:424–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lehman CD, Smith RA. The role of MRI in breast cancer screening. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2009;7:1109–15.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mankoff DA, Eary JF, Link JM, Muzi M, Rajendran JG, Spence AM, et al. Tumor-specific positron emission tomography imaging in patients: [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose and beyond. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3460–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosen EL, Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics. 2007;27:S215–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Partridge SC, Vanantwerp RK, Doot RK, Chai X, Kurland BF, Eby PR, et al. Association between serial dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic 18F-FDG PET measures in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32:1124–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:153–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brem RF, Fishman M, Rapelyea JA. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:945–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;247:651–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tromberg BJ, Pogue BW, Paulsen KD, Yodh AG, Boas DA, Cerussi AE. Assessing the future of diffuse optical imaging technologies for breast cancer management. Med Phys. 2008;35:2443–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tromberg BJ, Cerussi A, Shah N, Compton M, Durkin A, Hsiang D, et al. Imaging in breast cancer: diffuse optics in breast cancer: detecting tumors in pre-menopausal women and monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:279–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorace AG, Saini R, Mahoney M, Hoyt K. Molecular ultrasound imaging using a targeted contrast agent for assessing early tumor response to antiangiogenic therapy. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:1543–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eisenbrey JR, Forsberg F. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for molecular imaging of angiogenesis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:S138–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kenny L, Coombes RC, Vigushin DM, Al-Nahhas A, Shousha S, Aboagye EO. Imaging early changes in proliferation at 1 week post chemotherapy: a pilot study in breast cancer patients with 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]- fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1339–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kenny LM, Contractor KB, Stebbing J, Al-Nahhas A, Palmieri C, Shousha S, et al. Altered tissue 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine pharmacokinetics in human breast cancer following capecitabine treatment detected by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6649–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA, Ter-Pogossian MM. Application of annihilation coincidence detection to transaxial reconstruction tomography. J Nucl Med. 1975;16:210–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266:388–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brindle KM. New approaches for imaging tumour responses to treatment. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8:94–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quon A, Gambhir SS. FDG-PET and beyond: molecular breast cancer imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1664–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neves AA, Brindle KM. Assessing responses to cancer therapy using molecular imaging. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006;1766:242–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yoo J, Dence CS, Sharp TL, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ. Synthesis of an estrogen receptor beta-selective radioligand: 5-[18F]fluoro-(2R,3S)-2,3- bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)pentanenitrile and comparison of in vivo distribution with 16alpha-[18F]fluoro-17beta-estradiol. J Med Chem. 2005;48:6366–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Endo K, Oriuchi N, Higuchi T, Iida Y, Hanaoka H, Miyakubo M, et al. PET and PET/CT using 18F-FDG in the diagnosis and management of cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol. 2006;11:286–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hayashi M, Murakami K, Oyama T, Domeki Y, Hagiwara S, Katsumata D, et al. PET/CT supports breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Breast Cancer. 2008;15:224–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Soricelli A, et al. Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: lesion detection and quantitation of 18F-deoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    Kubota K, Furumoto S, Iwata R, Fukuda H, Kawamura K, Ishiwata K. Comparison of 18F-fluoromethylcholine and 2-deoxy-d-glucose in the distribution of tumor and inflammation. Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20:527–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Pisano ED, Aronson N. Should FDG PET be used to decide whether a patient with an abnormal mammogram or breast finding at physical examination should undergo biopsy? Acad Radiol. 2002;9:773–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, Madsen KS, Narayanan D, Tartar M. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tafra L, Cheng Z, Uddo J, Lobrano MB, Stein W, Berg WA, et al. Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2005;190:628–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smyczek-Gargya B, Fersis N, Dittmann H, Vogel U, Reischl G, Machulla HJ, et al. PET with [18F]fluorothymidine for imaging of primary breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:720–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pio BS, Park CK, Pietras R, Hsueh WA, Satyamurthy N, Pegram MD, et al. Usefulness of 3-[F-18]fluoro-3-deoxythymidine with positron emission tomography in predicting breast cancer response to therapy. Mol Imaging Biol. 2006;8:36–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Salskov A, Tammisetti VS, Grierson J, Vesselle H. FLT: measuring tumor cell proliferation in vivo with positron emission tomography and 3-deoxy-3-[18F]fluorothymidine. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:429–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Spataro V, Price K, Goldhirsch A, Cavalli F, Simoncini E, Castiglione M, et al. Sequential estrogen receptor determinations from primary breast cancer and at relapse: prognostic and therapeutic relevance. The International Breast Cancer Study Group (formerly Ludwig Group). Ann Oncol. 1992;3:733–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuukasjarvi T, Kononen J, Helin H, Holli K, Isola J. Loss of estrogen receptor in recurrent breast cancer is associated with poor response to endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2584–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brunn RB, Kamby C. Immunohistochemical detection of estrogen receptors in paraffin sections from primary and metastatic breast cancer. Pathol Res Pract. 1989;185:856–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Normanno N, Di Maio M, De Maio E, De Luca A, de Matteis A, Giordano A, et al. Mechanisms of endocrine resistance and novel therapeutic strategies in breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2005;12:721–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dehdashti F, Mortimer JE, Siegel BA, Griffeth LK, Bonasera TJ, Fusselman MJ, et al. Positron tomographic assessment of estrogen receptors in breast cancer: comparison with FDG-PET and in vitro receptor assays. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1766–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mintun MA, Welch MJ, Siegel BA, Mathias CJ, Brodack JW, McGuire AH, et al. Breast cancer: PET imaging of estrogen receptors. Radiology. 1988;169:45–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Peterson LM, Mankoff DA, Lawton T, Yagle K, Schubert EK, Stekhova S, et al. Quantitative imaging of estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer with PET and 18F-fluoroestradiol. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:367–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Katzenellenbogen JA, Fracasso P, Welch MJ. Positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and 16alpha-[18F]fluoro-17beta-estradiol in breast cancer: correlation with estrogen receptor status and response to systemic therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 1996;2:933–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Linden HM, Stekhova SA, Link JM, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Ellis GK, et al. Quantitative fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2793–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gemignani ML, Patil S, Seshan VE, Sampson M, Humm JL, Lewis JS, et al. Feasibility and predictability of perioperative PET and estrogen receptor ligand in patients with invasive breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1697–702.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moasser MM. The oncogene HER2: its signaling and transforming functions and its role in human cancer pathogenesis. Oncogene. 2007;26:6469–87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hayes DF, Thor AD, Dressler LG, Weaver D, Edgerton S, Cowan D, et al. HER2 and response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1496–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, Boose DJ, Thomas ES, Theriault RL, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3676–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1659–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, Sumab VJ, Geyer CE Jr, Davidson NE, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1673–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:783–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tripathy D, Slamon DJ, Cobleigh M, Arnord A, Saleh M, Mortimer JE, et al. Safety of treatment of metastatic breast cancer with trastuzumab beyond disease progression. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1063–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sauter G, Lee J, Bartlett JM, Slamon DJ, Press MF. Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1323–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lebeau A, Turzynski A, Braun S, Behrhof W, Fleige B, Schmitt WD, et al. Reliability of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry in breast core needle biopsies. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3264–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Xiao C, Gong Y, Han EY, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Sneige N. Stability of HER2-positive status in breast carcinoma: a comparison between primary and paired metastatic tumors with regard to the possible impact of intervening trastuzumab treatment. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1547–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Houssami N, Macaskill P, Balleine RL, Bilous M, Pegram MD. HER2 discordance between primary breast cancer and its paired metastasis: tumor biology or test artifact? Insights through meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129:659–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dijkers EC, de Vries EG, Kosterink JG, Brouwers AH, Lub-de Hooge MN. Immunoscintigraphy as potential tool in the clinical evaluation of HER2/neu targeted therapy. Curr Pharm Des. 2008;14:3348–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tamura K, Kurihara H, Yonemori K, Tsuda H, Suzuki J, Kono Y, et al. 64Cu-DOTA-Trastuzumab PET Imaging in Patients with HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1869–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kurihara H, Hamada A, Yoshida M, Shimma S, Hashimoto J, Yonemori K, et al. 64Cu-DOTA-trastuzumab PET imaging and HER2-specificity of brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. EJNMMI Res. 2015, (in print).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dijkers EC, Oude Munnink TH, Kosterink JG, Brouwers AH, Jager PL, de Jong JR, et al. Biodistribution of 89Zr-trastuzumab and PET imaging of HER2-positive lesions in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:586–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mortimer JE, Bading JR, Colcher DM, Conti PS, Frankel PH, Carroll MI, et al. Functional imaging of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer using (64)Cu-DOTA-trastuzumab PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:23–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schneider BP, Winer EP, Foulkes WD, Garber J, Perou CM, Richardson A, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: risk factors to potential targets. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:8010–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007;109:1721–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mersin H, Yildirim E, Berberoglu U, Gulben K. The prognostic importance of triple negative breast carcinoma. Breast. 2008;17:341–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cai W, Niu G, Chen X. Multimodality imaging of the HER-kinase axis in cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:186–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Honda N, Kurihara H, Takahashi K, Tazawa S, Tamura K, Zochi R, et al. Radiosynthesis of 64Cu-labelled cetuximab for clinical use. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:s1193.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Inoue T, Kim EE, Wallace S, Yang DJ, Wong FC, Bassa P, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]fluorotamoxifen to evaluate therapeutic responses in patients with breast cancer: preliminary study. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 1996;11:235–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Verhagen A, Luurtsema G, Pesser JW, de Groot TJ, Wouda S, Oosterhuis JW, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a positron emitting progestin ([18F]fluoro-16α-methyl-19-norprogesterone) for imaging progesterone receptor positive tumours with positron emission tomography. Cancer Lett. 1991;59:125–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dehdashti F, McGuire AH, Van Brocklin HF, Siegel BA, Andriole DO, Griffeth LK, et al. Assessment of 21-[18F]fluoro-16α-ethyl-19-norprogesterone as a positron-emitting radiopharmaceutical for the detection of progestin receptors in human breast carcinomas. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1532–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lee JH, Zhou HB, Dence CS, Carlson KE, Welch MJ, Katzenellenbogen JA. Development of [F-18]fluorine substituted tanaproget as a progesterone receptor imaging agent for positron emission tomography. Bioconjug Chem. 2010;21:1096–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Smith-Jones PM, Solit DB, Akhurst T, Afroze F, Rosen N, Larson SM. Imaging the pharmacodynamics of HER2 degradation in response to Hsp90 inhibitors. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:701–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Makris NE, Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA, van Dongen GA, Verheul HM, et al. PET/CT-derived whole-body and bone marrow dosimetry of 89Zr-cetuximab. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:249–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bhattacharyya S, Kurdziel K, Wei L, Riffle L, Kaur G, Hill GC, et al. Zirconium-89 labeled panitumumab: a potential immuno-PET probe for HER1-expressing carcinomas. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40:451–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wang H, Yu J, Yang G, Song X, Sun X, Zhao S, et al. Assessment of 11C-labeled-4-N-(3-bromoanilino)-6, 7-dimethoxyquinazoline as a positron emission tomography agent to monitor epidermal growth factor receptor expression. Cancer Sci. 2007;98:1413–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Heskamp S, Van Laarhoven HWM, Molkenboer-Kuenen JD, Franssen GM, Versleijen-Jonkers YM, Oyen WJ, et al. ImmunoSPECT and immunoPET of IGF-1R expression with the radiolabeled antibody R1507 in a triple-negative breast cancer model. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1565–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wang H, Cai W, Chen K, Li ZB, Kashefi A, He L, et al. A new PET tracer specific for vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:2001–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gaykema SB, Brouwers AH, Lub-de Hooge MN, Pleijhuis RG, Timmer-Bosscha H, Pot L, et al. 89Zr-bevacizumab PET imaging in primary breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1014–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chen X, Park R, Tohme M, Shahinian AH, Bading JR, Conti PS. MicroPET and autoradiographic imaging of breast cancer αv-Integrin Expression Using 18F- and 64Cu-Labeled RGD Peptide. Bioconjug Chem. 2004;15:41–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Beer AJ, Niemeyer M, Carlsen J, Sarbia M, Nahrig J, Watzlowik P, et al. Patterns of αvβ3 expression in primary and metastatic human breast cancer as shown by 18F-galacto-RGD PET. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:255–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroaki Kurihara
    • 1
  • Chikako Shimizu
    • 2
  • Yasuji Miyakita
    • 3
  • Masayuki Yoshida
    • 4
  • Akinobu Hamada
    • 5
  • Yousuke Kanayama
    • 6
  • Kan Yonemori
    • 2
  • Jun Hashimoto
    • 2
  • Hitomi Tani
    • 1
  • Makoto Kodaira
    • 2
  • Mayu Yunokawa
    • 2
  • Harukaze Yamamoto
    • 2
  • Yasuyoshi Watanabe
    • 6
  • Yasuhiro Fujiwara
    • 2
  • Kenji Tamura
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Breast and Medical OncologyNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of Pathology and Clinical LaboratoriesNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Clinical Pharmacology Group for Translational Research Support CoreNational Cancer Center Research InstituteTokyoJapan
  6. 6.RIKEN Center for Molecular Imaging ScienceKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations