Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging
Volume 2017, Article ID 5438395, 10 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5438395
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; ten.haey@yxiugnew

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.

Linked References

  1. J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. Dikshit et al., “Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012,” International Journal of Cancer, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. L. Fan, Y. Zheng, K.-D. Yu et al., “Breast cancer in a transitional society over 18 years: Trends and present status in Shanghai, China,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 409–416, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. National Cancer Center and Disease Prevention and Control Bureau MoH: Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report, 2013, Military Medical Sciences Press, Beijing, China, 2014.
  4. L. Nyström, I. Andersson, N. Bjurstam, J. Frisell, B. Nordenskjöld, and L. E. Rutqvist, “Long-term effects of mammography screening: Updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials,” Lancet, vol. 359, no. 9310, pp. 909–919, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. H. Shimada, T. Setoguchi, M. Yokouchi et al., “Metastatic bone tumors: analysis of factors affecting prognosis and efficacy of CT and 18F-FDG WBPET-CT in identifying primary lesions,” Molecular and Clinical Oncology, vol. 2, pp. 875–881, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  6. A. M. García Vicente, M. Á. Cruz Mora, A. A. León Martín et al., “Glycolytic activity with 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts final neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer,” Tumor Biology, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 11613–11620, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. K. Ogino, M. Nakajima, M. Kakuta et al., “Utility of FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of the response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” International Surgery, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 309–318, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. M. Marti-Climent, I. Dominguez-Prado, M. J. Garcia-Velloso et al., “[18F]fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced breast cancer under bevacizumab treatment: usefulness of different quantitative methods of tumor proliferation,” Revista Española de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen Molecular, vol. 33, pp. 280–285, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  9. R. R. Raylman, J. Abraham, H. Hazard et al., “Initial clinical test of a breast-PET scanner,” Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 58–64, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. L. Pan, Y. Han, X. Sun, J. Liu, and H. Gang, “FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 136, no. 7, pp. 1007–1022, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. C. R. Isasi, R. M. Moadel, and M. D. Blaufox, “A meta-analysis of FDG-PET for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 105–112, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. I. C. Smith and F. J. Gilbert, “Role of positron emission tomography in the management of breast cancer,” Breast, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 303–310, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. A. Argus and M. C. Mahoney, “Positron emission mammography: diagnostic imaging and biopsy on the same day,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 202, no. 1, pp. 216–222, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. C. J. Thompson, K. Murthy, I. N. Weinbera, and F. Mako, “Feasibility Study for Positron Emission Mammography,” Medical Physics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 529–538, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. M. Bergman, C. J. Thompson, K. Murthy et al., “Technique to obtain positron emission mammography images in registration with x-ray mammograms,” Medical Physics, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 2119–2129, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. N. K. Doshi, Y. Shao, R. W. Silverman, and S. R. Cherry, “Design and evaluation of an LSO PET detector for breast cancer imaging,” Medical Physics, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1535–1543, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. C. J. Thompson, K. Murthy, M. Aznar et al., “Preliminary clinical evaluation of an instrument for ‘‘positron emission mammography’’ in the detection of breast cancer,” Clinical Positron Imaging, vol. 1, article 265, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  18. I. Weinberg, S. Majewski, A. Weisenberger et al., “Preliminary results for positron emission mammography: Real-time functional breast imaging in a conventional mammography gantry,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 804–806, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. J. Qi and R. H. Huesman, “Scatter correction for positron emission mammography,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 47, no. 15, pp. 2759–2771, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. I. N. Weinberg, D. Beylin, V. Zavarzin et al., “Positron emission mammography: high-resolution biochemical breast imaging,” Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, vol. 4, pp. 55–60, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  21. E. A. Levine, R. I. Freimanis, N. D. Perrier et al., “Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 10, pp. 86–91, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  22. E. L. Rosen, T. G. Turkington, M. S. Soo, J. A. Baker, and R. E. Coleman, “Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: Initial experience,” Radiology, vol. 234, no. 2, pp. 527–534, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. L. Tafra, Z. Cheng, J. Uddo et al., “Pilot clinical trial of FDG positron emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 190, pp. 628–632, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  24. A. Aliaga, J. A. Rousseau, R. Ouellette et al., “Breast cancer models to study the expression of estrogen receptors with small animal PET imaging,” Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 761–770, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. Caldarella, G. Treglia, and A. Giordano, “Diagnostic performance of dedicated positron emission mammography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in women with suspicious breast lesions: A meta-analysis,” Clinical Breast Cancer, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 241–248, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. Y. Yamamoto, Y. Ozawa, K. Kubouchi, S. Nakamura, Y. Nakajima, and T. Inoue, “Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 21–25, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. L. Li, X.-Y. Gu, D.-W. Li et al., “Performance evaluation and initial clinical test of the positron emission mammography system (PEMi),” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 2048–2056, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. K. Schilling, D. Narayanan, J. E. Kalinyak et al., “Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: Comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 23–36, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. J. E. Kalinyak, W. A. Berg, K. Schilling et al., “Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast WBPET compared to whole-body WBPET or WBPET/CT,” The European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 41, pp. 260–275, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  30. R. L. Wahl, “Current status of PET in breast cancer imaging, staging, and therapy,” Seminars in Roentgenology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 250–260, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. A. Mavi, M. Urhan, Y. u. JQ et al., “Dual time point 18F-FDG WBPET imaging detects breast cancer with high sensitivity and correlates well with histologic subtypes,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, pp. 1440–1446, 2006. View at Google Scholar