Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Mini-Review
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 265:51–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fowler AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN (2017) Imaging neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. Radiology 285:358–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 244:381–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–v30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 15:441–448

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 56:375–384

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 37:467–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E (2013) Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology 266:388–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 49:808–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 83:2231–2239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vogel WV, Nestle U, Valli MC (2017) PET/MRI in breast cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 5:71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 51:281–288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 281:193–202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 22:264–273

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 85:459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 112:1452–1460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 50:505–513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 83:289–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 84:126–135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bezrukov I, Mantlik F, Schmidt H, Scholkopf B, Pichler BJ (2013) MR-based PET attenuation correction for PET/MR imaging. Semin Nucl Med 43:45–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 30:344–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 29:425–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 30:455–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 40:779–787

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Via Gattamelata, 64, 35128, Padua, Italy

    Laura Evangelista, Lea Cuppari & Marta Burei

  2. Breast Radiology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Via Gattamelata, 64, 35128, Padua, Italy

    Francesca Caumo

  3. Physic Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Via Gattamelata, 64, 35128, Padua, Italy

    Alessandra Zorz

Authors
  1. Laura Evangelista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lea Cuppari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Burei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandra Zorz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesca Caumo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Evangelista.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evangelista, L., Cuppari, L., Burei, M. et al. Head-to-head comparison between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 7, 99–104 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-019-00319-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-019-00319-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation