Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 5438395, 10 pages
Clinical Study

Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer

1Department of Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine and Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy and Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China
2PET Center of Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
3Division of Nuclear Technology and Applications, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4Beijing Engineering Research Center of Radiographic Techniques and Equipment, Beijing 100049, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Wengui Xu

Received 21 February 2017; Accepted 10 May 2017; Published 3 July 2017

Academic Editor: David Yang

Copyright © 2017 Dong Dai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Objective. To compare the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) positron emission mammography (PEM) versus whole body positron emission tomography (WBPET) for breast cancer. Methods. A total of 410 women with normal breast or benign or highly suspicious malignant tumors were randomized at 1 : 1 ratio to undergo 3D-PEM followed by WBPET or WBPET followed by 3D-PEM. Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed on eligible participants after the scanning. Results. The sensitivity and specificity of 3D-PEM were 92.8% and 54.5%, respectively. WBPET showed a sensitivity of 95.7% and specificity of 56.8%. After exclusion of the patients with lesions beyond the detecting range of the 3D-PEM instrument, 3D-PEM showed higher sensitivity than WBPET (97.0% versus 95.5%, P = 0.913), particularly for small lesions (<1 cm) (72.0% versus 60.0%, P = 0.685). Conclusions. The 3D-PEM appears more sensitive to small lesions than WBPET but may fail to detect lesions that are beyond the detecting range. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee (E2012052) at the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (Tianjin, China). The instrument positron emission mammography (PEMi) was approved by China State Food and Drug Administration under the registration number 20153331166.