Breast Cancer

  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Masashi Yukihiro


In 2003, breast cancer was the most frequently diagnosed cancer (212,600 new cases), and the second leading cause of cancer death (40,200 deaths) in American women (Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:23–47). In women ages 40–55 years, breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality (Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:23–47). There has been a slight decline in breast cancer mortality overall (Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:23–47) that can be attributed both to the success of early detection and to advanced treatment, particularly systemic therapy. Caucasian women in the US have a 13.1% lifetime incidence of developing breast cancer, whereas African-American women have a 9.6% lifetime incidence (Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:23–47). However, the lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer is 3.4% for both African-American and Caucasian women in the U.S. While the incidence of invasive breast cancer has leveled off, the number of ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) has been on the rise, probably a result of the increasing use of screening mammography.


Positron Emission Tomography Standard Uptake Value Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Positron Emission Mammography Lifetime Incidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:23–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;1158:521–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stavros AT, Thickman D, Sisney GA, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196:123–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amano S, Inoue T, Tomiyoshi K, et al. In vivo comparison of PET and SPECT radiopharmaceuticals in detecting breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1424–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by F-18 FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:9–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crippa F, Seregini E, Agresti R, et al. Association between F-18 flurodeoxyglucose uptake and postoperative histopathology, hormone receptor status, thymidine labelling index and p53 in primary breast cancer; a preliminary observation. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25:1429–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paramagul CP, Helvic MA, Adler DD. Invasive lobular carcinoma: sonographic appearance and role of sonography in improving diagnostic sensitivity. Radiology. 1995;195:231–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown RS, Leung JY, Fisher SJ, et al. Intratumoral distribution of tritiated fluorodeoxyglucose in breast carcinoma. Are inflammatory cells important? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1854–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clavo AC, Wahl RL. Effects of hypoxia on the uptake of tritiated thymidine, L-leucine, L-methionine and FDG in cultured cancer cells. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:502–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haberkorn U, Strauss LG, Reisser C, et al. Glucose uptake, perfusion, and cell proliferation in head and neck tumors: relation of positron emission tomography to flow cytometry. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1548–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burgman P, O’Donoghue JA, Humm JL, et al. Hypoxia-induced increase in FDG uptake in MCF7 cells. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:170–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahl RL, Helvie MA, Chang AE, et al. Detection of breast cancer in women after augmentation mammoplasty using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:872–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. PET in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 1998;28:290–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Avril N, Dose J, Jäniicke F, et al. Assessment of axillary lymph node involvement in breast patients with positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 2-(fluorine-18)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:1204–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Utech CI, Young CS, Winter PF. Prospective evaluation of F-18 FDG PET in breast cancer for staging of the axilla related to surgery and immunocytochemistry. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;23:1588–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoh K, Hawkins RA, Glaspy JA, et al. Cancer detection with whole-body PET using F-18 FDG. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:582–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haberkorn U, Reinhardt M, Strauss LG, et al. Metabolic design of combination therapy: use of enhanced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake caused by chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1981–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minn H, Soini I. F-18 FDG scintigraphy in diagnosis and follow up of treatment in advanced breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1989;15:61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jansson T, Westlin JE, Ahlstrom H, et al. PET studies in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer: a method for early therapy evaluation? J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1470–744.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bassa P, Kim EE, Inoue T, et al. Evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy using PET with F-18 FDG in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:931–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vranjesevic D, Filmont JE, Meta J, et al. Whole-body F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging for predicting outcome in previously treated breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:325–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ravdin PM, Green S, Dorr TM, et al. Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor levels in ­estrogen receptor positive patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: results of a prospective Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:1284–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGuire AH, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Positron tomographic assessment of estrogen receptors in breast assays. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1766–74.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dehdashti F, Mortimer JE, Siegel BA, 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
  25. 25.
    Butler JA, Trezona T, Vargas H, et al. Value of measuring hormone receptor levels of regional metastatic carcinoma of the breast. Arch Surg. 1989;124:1131–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Welch MJ, Bonasera TA, Sherman EIC, et al. F-18 FDG and 162-(F-18) fluoroestradiol-17B (FES) uptake in estrogen-receptor (ER)-rich tissues following tamoxifen treatment: a preclinical study. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:39–44.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wahl RL, Cody R, Fisher S. Uptake before and after estrogen receptor stimulation: feasibility studies for functional receptor imaging. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1011–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dehdashti F, Flanagan FL, Siegel BA. PET assessment of metabolic flare in advanced breast cancer. Radiology. 1997;205:220–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Medical SchoolHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of Convergence Science and TechnologySeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineGunma UniversityIhara ShizoukaJapan

Personalised recommendations