PET-CT pp 41-64 | Cite as

Breast Neoplasms

  • Nova M. Isaac
  • Peter S. Conti


Multiple retrospective studies have demonstrated the value of PET/CT imaging in the various stages of breast neoplasms. Currently. PET/CT evaluation is not covered by National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) for Initial treatment plan/ evaluation. It is covered for subsequent treatment strategy evaluations which include treatment monitoring, restaging and detection of suspected recurrence.


Left Breast Soft Tissue Density DLBCL Patient Diffuse Large Cell Lymphoma Primary Breast Lymphoma 
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.
    Lim HS, Yoon W, et al. FDG PET/CT for the detection and evaluation of breast diseases: usefulness and limitations. Radiographics. 2007;27:S197–213. doi: 10.1148/rg.27si075507October.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86(3):429–38 [PUBMED Abstract].CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jansson T, Westlin JE, Ahlstrom H, Lilja A, Langstrom B, Bergh J. Positron emission tomography studies in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer: a method for early therapy evaluation? J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1470–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bassa P, Kim EE, Inoue T, et al. Evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy using PET with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:931–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song BI, Lee SW, et al. 18F-FDG uptake by metastatic axillary lymph nodes on pretreatment pet/ct as a prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with invasive ductal breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(9):1337–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koizumi M, et al. Comparison between solitary and multiple skeletal metastatic lesions of breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(8):1234–40. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdg348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coleman RE, Smith P, Rubens RD. Clinical course and prognostic factors following bone recurrence from breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1998;77:336–40.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diagnosis of breast cancer metastasis with PET/CT in patients with elevation of tumor markers.
  10. 10.
    Haug AR, Tiega Donfack BP, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts survival after radio embolization of hepatic metastases from breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(3):371–7. Epub 2012 Feb 13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosen EL, et al. FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics. 2007;27:S215–29. doi: 10.1148/rg.27si075517October.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maki DD, et al. Patterns of disease spread in metastatic breast carcinoma: influence of estrogen and progesterone receptor status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1064–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Pisani F, et al. Diffuse large B cell lymphoma involving the breast: a report of four cases. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2006;25(2):277–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mouna B, et al. Primary malignant non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of the breast: a study of seven cases and literature review. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:151. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-151.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nova M. Isaac
    • 1
  • Peter S. Conti
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations