Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Molecular imaging using PET for breast cancer

  • Special Feature
  • The way to the next generation molecular diagnostics
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mankoff DA. A definition of molecular imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:18N–21N.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrett T, Brechbiel M, Bernardo M, Choyke PL. MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:235–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Padhani AR, Leach MO. Antivascular cancer treatments: functional assessments by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:324–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosen EL, Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics. 2007;27:S215–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Benard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:153–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Eisenbrey JR, Forsberg F. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for molecular imaging of angiogenesis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:S138–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brindle KM. New approaches for imaging tumour responses to treatment. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8:94–107.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Quon A, Gambhir SS. FDG-PET and beyond: molecular breast cancer imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1664–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Neves AA, Brindle KM. Assessing responses to cancer therapy using molecular imaging. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006;1766:242–61.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Moasser MM. The oncogene HER2: its signaling and transforming functions and its role in human cancer pathogenesis. Oncogene. 2007;26:6469–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mersin H, Yildirim E, Berberoglu U, Gulben K. The prognostic importance of triple negative breast carcinoma. Breast. 2008;17:341–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Chen X, Park R, Tohme M, Shahinian AH, Bading JR, Conti PS. MicroPET and autoradiographic imaging of breast cancer α v -Integrin Expression Using 18F- and 64Cu-Labeled RGD Peptide. Bioconjug Chem. 2004;15:41–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Beer AJ, Niemeyer M, Carlsen J, Sarbia M, Nahrig J, Watzlowik P, et al. Patterns of α v β3 expression in primary and metastatic human breast cancer as shown by 18F-galacto-RGD PET. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:255–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan

    Hiroaki Kurihara & Hitomi Tani

  2. Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Chikako Shimizu, Kan Yonemori, Jun Hashimoto, Makoto Kodaira, Mayu Yunokawa, Harukaze Yamamoto, Yasuhiro Fujiwara & Kenji Tamura

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Yasuji Miyakita

  4. Department of Pathology and Clinical Laboratories, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Masayuki Yoshida

  5. Department of Clinical Pharmacology Group for Translational Research Support Core, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan

    Akinobu Hamada

  6. RIKEN Center for Molecular Imaging Science, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan

    Yousuke Kanayama & Yasuyoshi Watanabe

Authors
  1. Hiroaki Kurihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chikako Shimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yasuji Miyakita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masayuki Yoshida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Akinobu Hamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yousuke Kanayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kan Yonemori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hitomi Tani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Makoto Kodaira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mayu Yunokawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Harukaze Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yasuyoshi Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Yasuhiro Fujiwara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Kenji Tamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroaki Kurihara.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurihara, H., Shimizu, C., Miyakita, Y. et al. Molecular imaging using PET for breast cancer. Breast Cancer 23, 24–32 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0613-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0613-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation