Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 86–91 | Cite as

Positron Emission Mammography: Initial Clinical Results

  • Edward A. Levine
  • Rita I. Freimanis
  • Nancy D. Perrier
  • Kathryn Morton
  • Nadia M. Lesko
  • Simon Bergman
  • Kim R. Geisinger
  • Rodney C. Williams
  • Connie Sharpe
  • Valera Zavarzin
  • Irving N. Weinberg
  • Pavel Y. Stepanov
  • David Beylin
  • Kathryn Lauckner
  • Mohan Doss
  • Judy Lovelace
  • Lee P. Adler
Original Article

Abstract

Background: Evaluation of high-risk mammograms represents an enormous clinical challenge. Functional breast imaging coupled with mammography (positron emission mammography [PEM]) could improve imaging of such lesions. A prospective study was performed using PEM in women scheduled for stereotactic breast biopsy.

Methods: Patients were recruited from the surgical clinic. Patients were injected with 10 mCi of 2-[18F] fluorodeoxyglucose. One hour later, patients were positioned on the stereotactic biopsy table, imaged with a PEM scanner, and a stereotactic biopsy was performed. Imaging was reviewed and compared with pathologic results.

Results: There were 18 lesions in 16 patients. PEM images were analyzed by drawing a region of interest at the biopsy site and comparing the count density in the region of interest with the background. A lesion-to-background ratio >2.5 appeared to be a robust indicator of malignancy and yielded a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 91%, and overall diagnostic accuracy of 89%. No adverse events were associated with the PEM imaging.

Conclusions: The data show that PEM is safe, feasible, and has an encouraging accuracy rate in this initial experience. Lesion-to-background ratios >2.5 were found to be a useful threshold value for identifying positive (malignant) results. This study supports the further development of PEM.

Key Words

Mammography Breast Imaging PET Cancer Diagnosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Kerilikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging and Reporting System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1801–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weinberg IN, Majewski S, Weisenberger AG, et al. Preliminary results for positron emission mammography: real-time functional breast imaging in a conventional mammography gantry. Eur J Nucl Med 1996; 23: 804–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IN Weinberg, V Zawarzin, R Pani. Implementing PET-guided biopsy. Integrating functional imaging data with digital x-ray mammography cameras. In: Mun SK ed. Medical Imaging 2001: Visualization, Display, and Image-Guided Procedures. Vol. 4319. Proc. Bellingham: SPIE, 82 7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adler LP, Crowe JP, Al-Kaisi NK, Sunshine JL. Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET. Radiology 1993; 187: 743–50.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avril N, Schelling RM, Dose J, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3495–3502.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knopp MV, Weiss E, Sinn HP, et al. Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 260–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith IC, Ogston KN, Whitford P, et al. Staging of the axilla in breast cancer accurate in vivo assessment using positron emission tomography with 2-(fluorine-18)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 220–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greco M, Crippa F, Agresti R, et al. Axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer by 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography: clinical evaluation and alternative management. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 630–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Council on Scientific Affairs. Positron emission tomography in oncology. JAMA 1988; 259: 2126–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1676–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schelling M, Avril N, Nahrig J, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1689–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oshida M, Ono K, Suzuki M, et al. Predicting the prognoses of breast carcinoma patients with positron emission tomo-graphy using 2-deoxy-2-fluoro- [18F]-D-glucose. Cancer 1998; 82: 2227–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Surgical Oncology, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward A. Levine
    • 1
    • 7
  • Rita I. Freimanis
    • 2
  • Nancy D. Perrier
    • 1
  • Kathryn Morton
    • 2
  • Nadia M. Lesko
    • 2
  • Simon Bergman
    • 3
  • Kim R. Geisinger
    • 3
  • Rodney C. Williams
    • 2
  • Connie Sharpe
    • 2
  • Valera Zavarzin
    • 4
  • Irving N. Weinberg
    • 4
  • Pavel Y. Stepanov
    • 4
  • David Beylin
    • 4
  • Kathryn Lauckner
    • 5
  • Mohan Doss
    • 6
  • Judy Lovelace
    • 1
  • Lee P. Adler
    • 6
  1. 1.Departments of Surgery (EAL, NDP, JL)Wake Forest University School of MedicineWinston-Salem
  2. 2.Departments of Radiology (RIF, KM, NML, CS, RCW)Wake Forest University School of MedicineWinston-Salem
  3. 3.Departments of Pathology (SB, KRG)Wake Forest University School of MedicineWinston-Salem
  4. 4.PEM Technologies Inc. (VZ, INW, PYS, DB)Bethesda
  5. 5.Seleon gmbh (KL)Freiburg
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear Medicine (MD, LPA)Fox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphia
  7. 7.Surgical Oncology ServiceWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem

Personalised recommendations