Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Imaging

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 99–104 | Cite as

Head-to-head comparison between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer

  • Laura EvangelistaEmail author
  • Lea Cuppari
  • Marta Burei
  • Alessandra Zorz
  • Francesca Caumo
Mini-Review
  • 59 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Breast

Abstract

Aim

The aim of the present review is to assess the diagnostic performance of PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients, by a head-to-head comparison.

Materials and methods

Two reviewers conducted the literature search, study inclusion and data extraction in duplicate. A literature search for studies on a head-to-head comparison between PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients was carried out. MEDLINE databases, such as PubMed and Scopus were consulted using the following keywords: “PET/CT” AND “PET/MRI” AND “breast cancer”. Data about the diagnostic accuracy was collected, if available, in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.

Results

Between 2014 and 2018, 8 articles were available about the head-to-head comparison between PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients. PET/CT has a lower sensitivity for the detection of contralateral breast cancer and bone metastasis as compared to PET/MRI. PET/MRI and PET/CT has a similar diagnostic accuracy for the detection of axillary, internal mammary and mediastinal lymph node involvement. Semiquantitative parameters by PET/MRI are higher than those computed by PET/CT, but a strong organ-specific correlation between them was found.

Conclusions

PET/MRI has some advantages in breast cancer, being able to detect more primary and skeletal/non-skeletal distant metastases, as compared to PET/CT, thanks to the advantages from the combined MRI.

Keywords

PET/CT PET/MRI FDG Data accuracy Comparative study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Department of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy for providing representative images of PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animals rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

40336_2019_319_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hillman BJ, Harms SE, Stevens G, Stough RG, Hollingsworth AB, Kozlowski KF et al (2012) Diagnostic performance of a dedicated 1.5-T breast MR imaging system. Radiology 265:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fowler AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN (2017) Imaging neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. Radiology 285:358–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT et al (2007) Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 244:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rutgers E et al (2015) Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(Supplement 5):v8–v30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi YJ, Shin YD, Kang YH, Lee MS, Lee MK, Cho BS et al (2012) The effects of preoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients in comparison to the conventional imaging study. J Breast Cancer 15:441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evangelista L, Baretta Z, Vinante L, Bezzon E, De Carolis V, Cervino AR et al (2012) Comparison of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography and computed tomography in patients with already-treated breast cancer: diagnostic and prognostic implications. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 56:375–384Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evangelista L, Cervino AR, Ghiotto C, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D, Muzzio PC (2012) Tumor marker-guided PET in breast cancer patients-a recipe for a perfect wedding: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 37:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E (2013) Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology 266:388–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, Gratz M, Schulze-Hagen A, Heubner M et al (2014) Simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: a comparison to whole-body magnetic resonance imaging alone. Invest Radiol 49:808–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S (2014) Simultaneous whole-body 18F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 83:2231–2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vogel WV, Nestle U, Valli MC (2017) PET/MRI in breast cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 5:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M, Da Cunha Afonso Barisits AC, Boudabbous S, Montet X et al (2018) What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5720-8 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Catalano AO, Daye D, Signore A, Iannace C, Vangel M, Luongo A et al (2017) Staging performance of whole-body DWI, PET/CT and PET/MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Intern J Oncol 51:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K (2016) Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology 281:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pujara AC, Raad RA, Ponzo F, Wassong C, Babb JS, Moy L, Melsaether AN (2016) Standardized uptake values from PET/MRI in metastatic breast cancer: an organ-based comparison with PET/CT. Breast J 22:264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L et al (2016) Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 85:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C et al (2015) Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 112:1452–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T et al (2015) Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 50:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Soricelli A et al (2014) 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 83:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heusner TA, Hahn S, Jonkmanns C, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, Hamami ME et al (2011) Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography: initial results. Br J Radiol 84:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bezrukov I, Mantlik F, Schmidt H, Scholkopf B, Pichler BJ (2013) MR-based PET attenuation correction for PET/MR imaging. Semin Nucl Med 43:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Visvikis D, Costa DC, Croasdale I, Lonn AH, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S et al (2003) CT-based attenuation correction in the calculation of semi-quantitative indices of [18F]FDG uptake in PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen YM, Huang G, Sun XG, Liu JJ, Chen T, Shi YP, Wan LR (2008) Optimizing delayed scan time for FDG PET: comparison of the early and late delayed scan. Nucl Med Commun 29:425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laffon E, de Clermont H, Begueret H, Vernejoux JM, Thumerel M, Marthan R et al (2009) Assessment of dual-time-point 18F-FDG-PET imaging for pulmonary lesions. Nucl Med Commun 30:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cheng G, Torigian DA, Zhuang H, Alavi A (2013) When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:779–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine UnitVeneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCSPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Breast Radiology UnitVeneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCSPaduaItaly
  3. 3.Physic UnitVeneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCSPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations