Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Oncology
Volume 2012, Article ID 438647, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/438647
Review Article

Molecular Imaging in Breast Cancer: From Whole-Body PET/CT to Dedicated Breast PET

1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 20 April 2012; Accepted 21 May 2012

Academic Editor: Alvaro Ruibal

Copyright © 2012 B. B. Koolen 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. R. Siegel, D. Naishadham, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics,” A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 62, pp. 10–29, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. C. DeSantis, R. Siegel, P. Bandi, and A. Jemal, “Breast cancer statistics,” A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 61, pp. 409–418, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  3. D. A. Berry, K. A. Cronin, S. K. Plevritis et al., “Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 353, no. 17, pp. 1784–1792, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. J. M. van der Hoeven, N. C. Krak, O. S. Hoekstra et al., “18F positron emission tomography in staging of locally advanced breast cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1253–1259, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. D. Fuster, J. Duch, P. Paredes et al., “Preoperative staging of large primary breast cancer with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional imaging procedures,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 26, no. 29, pp. 4746–4751, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. T. S. Aukema, M. E. Straver, M. J. T. F. D. V. Peeters et al., “Detection of extra-axillary lymph node involvement with FDG PET/CT in patients with stage II-III breast cancer,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 46, no. 18, pp. 3205–3210, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. T. S. Aukema, E. J. T. Rutgers, W. V. Vogel et al., “The role of FDG PET/CT in patients with locoregional breast cancer recurrence: a comparison to conventional imaging techniques,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 387–392, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Peare, R. T. Staff, and S. D. Heys, “The use of FDG-PET in assessing axillary lymph node status in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 281–290, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. B. B. Koolen, M. J. T. F. D. Peeters, T. S. Aukema, W. V. Vogel, H. S. A. Oldenburg, J. A. van der Hage et al., “18F PET/CT as a staging procedure in primary stage II and III breast cancer: comparison with conventional imaging techniques,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 131, pp. 117–126, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  10. A. Gil-Rendo, F. Martínez-Regueira, G. Zornoza, M. J. García-Velloso, C. Beorlegui, and N. Rodriguez-Spiteri, “Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer,” British Journal of Surgery, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 166–170, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. D. Groheux, S. Giacchetti, J. L. Moretti et al., “Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 426–435, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. Y. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Liu, and G. Huang, “Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 357–369, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. N. Avril, C. A. Rose, M. Schelling et al., “Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 20, pp. 3495–3502, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. T. F. Çermik, A. Mavi, S. Basu, and A. Alavi, “Impact of FDG PET on the preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 475–483, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. Z. Garami, Z. Hascsi, J. Varga et al., “The value of 18-FDG PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer compared to traditional diagnostic modalities with an emphasis on changes in disease stage designation and treatment plan,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 31–37, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Vidal-Sicart, T. S. Aukema, W. V. Vogel, C. A. Hoefnagel, and R. A. Valdés-Olmos, “Added value of prone position technique for PET-TAC in breast cancer patients,” Revista Espanola de Medicina Nuclear, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 230–235, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. W. Fletcher, B. Djulbegovic, H. P. Soares et al., “Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 480–508, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. N. C. Hodgson and K. Y. Gulenchyn, “Is there a role for positron emission tomography in breast cancer staging?” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 712–720, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse, “Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations,” Radiology, vol. 225, no. 1, pp. 165–175, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. W. A. Berg, L. Gutierrez, M. S. NessAiver et al., “Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer,” Radiology, vol. 233, no. 3, pp. 830–849, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. H. M. E. van Ufford, H. van Tinteren, S. G. Stroobants, I. I. Riphagen, and O. S. Hoekstra, “Added value of baseline 18F-FDG uptake in serial 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of response of solid extracerebral tumors to systemic cytotoxic neoadjuvant treatment: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 1507–1516, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. D. Vriens, J. A. Disselhorst, W. J. G. Oyen, L.-F. de Geus-Oei, and E. P. Visser, “Quantitative assessment of heterogeneity in tumor metabolism using FDG-PET,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. e725–e731, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. T. A. Yap, M. Gerlinger, P. A. Futreal, L. Pusztai, and C. Swanton, “Intratumor heterogeneity: seeing the wood for the trees,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 4, no. 127, Article ID 127ps10, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. Gerlinger, A. J. Rowan, S. Horswell et al., “Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 366, no. 10, pp. 883–892, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. J. Thompson, K. Murthy, I. N. Weinberg, 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
  26. K. Murthy, M. Aznar, C. J. Thompson, A. Loutfi, R. Lisbona, and J. H. Gagnon, “Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1851–1858, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. E. A. Levine, R. I. Freimanis, N. D. Perrier et al., “Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 86–91, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. L. MacDonald, J. Edwards, T. Lewellen, D. Haseley, J. Rogers, and P. Kinahan, “Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1666–1675, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. W. A. Berg, K. S. Madsen, K. Schilling et al., “Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast,” Radiology, vol. 258, no. 1, pp. 59–72, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. 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
  31. C. L. Wang, L. R. MacDonald, J. V. Rogers, A. Aravkin, D. R. Haseley, and J. D. Beatty, “Positron emission mammography: correlation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and 18F-FDG,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 197, no. 2, pp. W247–W255, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. W. A. Berg, K. S. Madsen, K. Schilling et al., “Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 198, no. 1, pp. 219–232, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. J. S. Eo, I. K. Chun, J. C. Paeng et al., “Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size,” Breast, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 66–71, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. J. E. Kalinyak, K. Schilling, W. A. Berg et al., “PET-guided breast biopsy,” The Breast Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 143–151, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. 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
  36. W. A. Berg, I. N. Weinberg, D. Narayanan et al., “High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer,” The Breast Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 309–323, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. R. E. Hendrick, “Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies,” Radiology, vol. 257, no. 1, pp. 246–253, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. K. O'Connor, H. Li, D. J. Rhodes, C. B. Hruska, C. B. Clancy, and R. J. Vetter, “Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast,” Medical Physics, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 6187–6198, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. R. R. Raylman, S. Majewski, M. F. Smith et al., “The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 637–653, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. 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
  41. Y. Wu, S. L. Bowen, K. Yang et al., “PET characteristics of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner prototype,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 54, no. 13, pp. 4273–4287, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. S. L. Bowen, Y. Wu, A. J. Chaudhari et al., “Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1401–1408, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. A. Soriano, A. González, A. Orero et al., “Attenuation correction without transmission scan for the MAMMI breast PET,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, vol. 648, supplement 1, pp. S75–S78, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. B. B. Koolen, T. S. Aukema, A. J. G. Martínez, W. V. Vogel, L. C. Ontanaya, and M. J. T. Peeters, “First clinical experience with a dedicated PET for hanging breast molecular imaging,” Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. In press.