Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract.

The aim of this study was to compare MRI of the breast with 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with suspected local or regional breast cancer recurrence or suspected contralateral breast cancer. Thirty-two patients (mean age 57.2 years, age range 32–76 years) with suspected loco-regional recurrence (n=19), chest wall recurrence (n=5), and suspected secondary tumor of the contralateral breast (n=8) underwent MRI of the breast and FDG PET of the whole body and breast region. Cytology/histology (n=17) or a clinical follow-up examination (n=15) with additional imaging served as the standard of reference. A McNemar test was performed to compare PET and MRI, and kappa was determined to quantify agreement of both methods. Sensitivity was 79 and 100%, specificity was 94 and 72%, and accuracy was 88 and 84% for MRI and PET, respectively. Additional metastases outside the field of view of MRI were found in PET in 5 patients. In this study both imaging methods had comparable accuracy. The detection of distant metastases with whole-body PET imaging can influence patient management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1a, b.
Fig. 2a–d.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Adler LP, Crowe JP, al-Kaisi NK, Sunshine JL (1993) Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET. Radiology 187:743–750

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wahl RL (1998) Overview of the current status of PET in breast cancer imaging. Q J Nucl Med 42:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brix G, Henze M, Knopp MV, Lucht R, Doll J, Junkermann H, Hawighorst H, Haberkorn U (2001) Comparison of pharmacokinetic MRI and [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the diagnosis of breast cancer: initial experience. Eur Radiol 11:2058–2070

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA, Takasugi J, Vesselle H, Eary JF, Shanley TJ, Gralow JR, Charlop A, Ellis GK, Lindsley KL, Austin-Seymour MM, Funkhouser CP, Livingston RB (2001) 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect mediastinal or internal mammary metastases in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:3516–3523

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bender H, Kirst J, Palmedo H, Schomburg A, Wagner U, Ruhlmann J, Biersack HJ (1997) Value of 18fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging of recurrent breast carcinoma. Anticancer Res 17:1687–1692

    Google Scholar 

  6. Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 220:13–30

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mumtaz H, Davidson T, Hall-Craggs MA, Payley M, Walmsley K, Cowley G, Taylor I (1997) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and conventional triple assessment in locally recurrent breast cancer. Br J Surg 84:1147–1151

    Google Scholar 

  8. Friedrich M (1998) MRI of the breast: state of the art. Eur Radiol 8:707–725

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kraemer S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hagedorn K, Bautz W, Lang N (1998) Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of local recurrences in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 18:2159–2162

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rieber A, Merkle E, Zeitler H, Gorich J, Kreienberg R, Brambs HJ, Tomczak R (1997) Value of MR mammography in the detection and exclusion of recurrent breast carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:780–784

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Shapeero LG, Lesnik A, Contesso G, Sarrazin D, Masselot J, Vanel D (1993) Assessment of breast cancer recurrence with contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging: preliminary results in 26 patients. Radiology 188:473–478

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dao TH, Rahmouni A, Campana F, Laurent M, Asselain B, Fourquet A (1993) Tumor recurrence versus fibrosis in the irradiated breast: differentiation with dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 187:751–755

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hathaway PB, Mankoff DA, Maravilla KR, Austin-Seymour MM, Ellis GK, Gralow JR, Cortese AA, Hayes CE, Moe RE (1999) Value of combined FDG PET and MR imaging in the evaluation of suspected recurrent local-regional breast cancer: preliminary experience. Radiology 210:807–814

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bettinardi V, Pagani E, Gilardi MC, Landoni C, Riddell C, Rizzo G, Castiglioni I, Belluzzo D, Lucignani G, Schubert S, Fazio F (1999) An automatic classification technique for attenuation correction in positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 26:447–458

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hudson HM, Larkin RS (1994) Accelerated image-reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13:601–609

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888

    Google Scholar 

  17. Palmedo H, Bender H, Grunwald F, Mallmann P, Zamora P, Krebs D, Biersack HJ (1997) Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography in the detection of breast tumours. Eur J Nucl Med 24:1138–1145

    Google Scholar 

  18. Strauss LG, Conti PS (1991) The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 32:623–648

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moon DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DH, Glaspy JA, Phelps ME, Hoh CK (1998) Accuracy of whole body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med 39:431–435

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey MN, Fogelman I (1998) Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 16:3375–3379

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Berenson JR, Janjan NA, Albain KS, Lipton A, Yee G, Biermann JS, Chlebowski RT, Pfister DG (2000) American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel. J Clin Oncol 18:1378–1391

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ahmad A, Barrington S, Maisey M, Rubens RD (1999) Use of positron emission tomography in evaluation of brachial plexopathy in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 79:478–482

    Google Scholar 

  23. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Schlegel A, Beck R, Wendt T, Kellner W, Lommatzsch B, Untch M, Nathrath WB (1993) Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast after limited surgery and radiation therapy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17:891–900

    Google Scholar 

  24. Keyes JW, Watson NE, Williams DW, Greven KM, McGuirt WF (1997) FDG PET in head and neck cancer. Am J Roentgenol 169:1663–1669

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements.

This study was partly supported by a grant from the Legat Frau Henriette Rossiez Treichler, Zurich, Switzerland. G.W.G. is an award winner of the Research and Education Fund of the European Association of Radiology. We thank M. Griff for help in preparing the manuscript and T. Berthold, C. Britt, L. Meier, and M. Farrell for their excellent technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland, Switzerland

    Gerhard W. Goerres, Achim H. Kaim, Hans C. Steinert & Gustav K. von Schulthess

  2. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland, Switzerland

    Sven C. A. Michel & Rahel A. Kubik-Huch

  3. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland, Switzerland

    Mathias K. Fehr

  4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland, Switzerland

    Burkhardt Seifert

Authors
  1. Gerhard W. Goerres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven C. A. Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathias K. Fehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Achim H. Kaim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hans C. Steinert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Burkhardt Seifert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gustav K. von Schulthess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rahel A. Kubik-Huch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerhard W. Goerres.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goerres, G.W., Michel, S.C.A., Fehr, M.K. et al. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 13, 1635–1644 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1720-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1720-8

Keywords.

Search

Navigation