Local and whole-body staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison of one-step to two-step staging utilizing 18F-FDG-PET/MRI
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of a one-step to a two-step staging algorithm utilizing 18F-FDG PET/MRI in breast cancer patients.
A total of 38 patients (37 females and one male, mean age 57 ± 10 years; range 31–78 years) with newly diagnosed, histopathologically proven breast cancer were prospectively enrolled in this trial. All PET/MRI examinations were assessed for local tumor burden and metastatic spread in two separate reading sessions: (1) One-step algorithm comprising supine whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI, and (2) Two-step algorithm comprising a dedicated prone 18F-FDG breast PET/MRI and supine whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI.
On a patient based analysis the two-step algorithm correctly identified 37 out of 38 patients with breast carcinoma (97%), while five patients were missed by the one-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI algorithm (33/38; 87% correct identification). On a lesion-based analysis 56 breast cancer lesions were detected in the two-step algorithm and 44 breast cancer lesions could be correctly identified in the one-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI (79%), resulting in statistically significant differences between the two algorithms (p = 0.0015). For axillary lymph node evaluation sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was 93%, 95 and 94%, respectively. Furthermore, distant metastases could be detected in seven patients in both algorithms.
The results demonstrate the necessity and superiority of a two-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI algorithm, comprising dedicated prone breast imaging and supine whole-body imaging, when compared to the one-step algorithm for local and whole-body staging in breast cancer patients.
KeywordsPET/MRI Supine breast PET/MRI Local breast staging
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 5.Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Koeninger A, Hamami ME, Hahn S, Quinsten A, et al. Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1077–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1399-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Garami Z, Hascsi Z, Varga J, Dinya T, Tanyi M, Garai I, 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. Eur J Surg Oncol :J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2012;38:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Filippi V, Malamitsi J, Vlachou F, Laspas F, Georgiou E, Prassopoulos V, et al. The impact of FDG-PET/CT on the management of breast cancer patients with elevated tumor markers and negative or equivocal conventional imaging modalities. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e328341c898.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P, Gruber S, Bickel H, Brueck B, et al. Improved diagnostic accuracy with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the breast using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and 3-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Investig Radiol. 2014;49:421–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of (1)(8)F-FDG PET/MRI, (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:459–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Mallory MA, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, DeSantis S, Jayender J, Caragacianu D, et al. Feasibility of intraoperative breast MRI and the role of prone versus supine positioning in surgical planning for breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2017;23:713–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12796.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Dietzel M, Zoubi R, Burmeister HP, Runnebaum IB, Kaiser WA, Baltzer PA. Combined staging at one stop using MR mammography: evaluation of an extended protocol to screen for distant metastasis in primary breast cancer - initial results and diagnostic accuracy in a prospective study. RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin. 2012;184:618–23. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T, et al. 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. Investig Radiol. 2015;50:505–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord SJ, Warren RM, Dixon JM, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3248–58. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. 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. 2016;281:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 36.Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Soricelli A, et al. 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. 2014;83:289–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Gombos EC, Jayender J, Richman DM, Caragacianu DL, Mallory MA, Jolesz FA, et al. Intraoperative supine breast MR imaging to quantify tumor deformation and detection of residual breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology. 2016;281:720–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151472.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 39.Heusch P, Buchbender C, Beiderwellen K, Nensa F, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Lauenstein TC, et al. Standardized uptake values for [(1)(8)F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:870–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.01.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar