Positron emission tomography (PET), with or without integrated computed tomography (CT), using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is based on the principle of elevated glucose metabolism in malignant tumors, and its use in breast cancer patients is frequently being investigated. It has been shown useful for classification, staging, and response monitoring, both in primary and recurrent disease. However, because of the partial volume effect and limited resolution of most whole-body PET scanners, sensitivity for the visualization of small tumors is generally low. To improve the detection and quantification of primary breast tumors with FDG PET, several dedicated breast PET devices have been developed. In this nonsystematic review, we shortly summarize the value of whole-body PET/CT in breast cancer and provide an overview of currently available dedicated breast PETs. 1. Introduction Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in women all over the world. In the United States, it is expected to account for 29% (226,870) of all new cancer cases among women in 2012 [1]. After an increase in incidence rates during the 70’s and 80’s, mainly caused by improvements in early detection, breast cancer incidence in the United States has been relatively stable over the last decade [2]. Overall cancer death rates have been declining consistently since 1991 (23% in men and 15% in women), with breast cancer accounting for 34% of the decrease in women. This decrease largely reflects improvements in early detection and/or treatment [3]; breast cancer screening programs have been launched and improved, various imaging modalities have been developed and modified, and patient-tailored/targeted treatment has been introduced and expanded. Mammography, ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are employed as diagnostic tools for several years. Recently, molecular imaging techniques for tumor detection have gained interest. Positron emission tomography (PET), with or without integrated computed tomography (CT), using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is based on the principle of increased glucose metabolism in malignant tumors and has been investigated frequently in breast cancer. It has been shown to be valuable for locoregional and distant staging in both primary and recurrent breast cancer [4–9]. Based on the association between prognostic characteristics and the degree of primary tumor FDG uptake [10, 11] and promising results regarding response monitoring during neoadjuvant chemotherapy with PET/CT [12], optimal quantification of metabolic activity is desirable.
References
[1]
R. Siegel, D. Naishadham, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics,” A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 62, pp. 10–29, 2012.
[2]
C. DeSantis, R. Siegel, P. Bandi, and A. Jemal, “Breast cancer statistics,” A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 61, pp. 409–418, 2011.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[14]
T. F. ？ermik, 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[37]
R. E. Hendrick, “Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies,” Radiology, vol. 257, no. 1, pp. 246–253, 2010.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
