Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET/MRI in Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
PET/MRI in Oncology

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, and represented more than 25% of the newly diagnosed cancer cases in women in 2016. PET/CT is recommended in the clinical workup of advanced breast cancers and in cases of breast cancer recurrence and may also be proposed in treatment monitoring. PET/MRI is a new imaging technique which is now being used clinically in different countries, and which may replace PET/CT in some selected breast cancer patients, when available. A detailed description of advantages and indications of, respectively, PET and MRI techniques taken separately in breast cancer patients is beyond the scope of the present work and has already been reviewed elsewhere by our group. We focused on the technical advantages and disadvantages of combined PET/MRI acquisitions in breast cancer patients from diagnosis to follow-up. In this chapter, we cover the specifics of PET/MRI in terms of quantification and provide a summary of the different protocols performed in breast cancer PET/MRI imaging. We will also discuss the clinical advances for patient management, the potential improvements that may occur in the future, as well as the future role that may be given to this technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ferlay JSI, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 11 GLOBOCAN 2012 v11; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cardoso F, Costa A, Norton L, et al. ESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2). Breast. 2014;23(5):489–502.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Blair SL, et al. Breast cancer version 3.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12(4):542–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Humbert O, Cochet A, Coudert B, et al. Role of positron emission tomography for the monitoring of response to therapy in breast cancer. Oncologist. 2015;20(2):94–104.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tabouret-Viaud C, Botsikas D, Delattre BM, et al. PET/MR in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(4):304–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, et al. Comparison of whole-body 18F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body 18F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2016;281(1):193–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schulz V, Torres-Espallardo I, Renisch S, et al. Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(1):138–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eiber M, Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(9):1691–701.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arabi H, Rager O, Alem A, Varoquaux A, Becker M, Zaidi H. Clinical assessment of MR-guided 3-class and 4-class attenuation correction in PET/MR. Mol Imaging Biol. 2014;17(2):264–76.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Samarin A, Burger C, Wollenweber SD, et al. PET/MR imaging of bone lesions--implications for PET quantification from imperfect attenuation correction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(7):1154–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalemis A, Delattre BM, Heinzer S. Sequential whole-body PET/MR scanner: concept, clinical use, and optimisation after two years in the clinic. The manufacturer’s perspective. MAGMA. 2013;26(1):5–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cho I, Kong E, Chun K. Image artifacts from MR-based attenuation correction in dedicated PET/MR breast coil for PET/MR mammography. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2(Suppl 1):A62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wiesmuller M, Quick HH, Navalpakkam B, et al. Comparison of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake between PET from a simultaneously acquiring whole-body PET/MR hybrid scanner and PET from PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(1):12–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Varoquaux A, Rager O, Poncet A, et al. Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: (18)F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(3):462–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(6):845–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kershah S, Partovi S, Traughber BJ, et al. Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an oncology patient population. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15(6):776–85.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Heusch P, Buchbender C, Beiderwellen K, 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(5):870–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo 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(2):289–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pujara AC, Raad RA, Ponzo F, et al. Standardized uptake values from PET/MRI in metastatic breast cancer: an organ-based comparison with PET/CT. Breast J. 2016;22(3):264–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Appenzeller P, Mader C, Huellner MW, et al. PET/CT versus body coil PET/MRI: how low can you go? Insights Imaging. 2013;4(4):481–90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Barbosa Fde G, von Schulthess G, Veit-Haibach P. Workflow in simultaneous PET/MRI. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(4):332–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Buchbender C, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Beiderwellen K, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging as part of hybrid PET/MRI protocols for whole-body cancer staging: does it benefit lesion detection? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(5):877–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zytoon AA, Murakami K, El-Kholy MR, El-Shorbagy E. Dual time point FDG-PET/CT imaging... Potential tool for diagnosis of breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(11):1213–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Botsikas D, Kalovidouri A, Becker M, et al. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG-PET/MR for preoperative breast cancer staging. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(7):2297–307.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Osman Ratib MS, Beyer T. Atlas of PET/MR imaging in oncology. Berlin: Springer; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Aklan B, Paulus DH, Wenkel E, et al. Toward simultaneous PET/MR breast imaging: systematic evaluation and integration of a radiofrequency breast coil. Med Phys. 2013;40(2):024301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dregely I, Lanz T, Metz S, et al. A 16-channel MR coil for simultaneous PET/MR imaging in breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(4):1154–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oehmigen M, Lindemann ME, Lanz T, Kinner S, Quick HH. Integrated PET/MR breast cancer imaging: attenuation correction and implementation of a 16-channel RF coil. Med Phys. 2016;43(8):4808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, 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(8):505–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Huellner MW, Appenzeller P, Kuhn FP, et al. Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: preliminary observations. Radiology. 2014;273(3):859–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuhn FP, Crook DW, Mader CE, Appenzeller P, von Schulthess GK, Schmid DT. Discrimination and anatomical mapping of PET-positive lesions: comparison of CT attenuation-corrected PET images with coregistered MR and CT images in the abdomen. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(1):44–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S. Simultaneous whole-body F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(12):2231–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244(2):356–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244(3):672–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Biglia N, Bounous VE, Martincich L, et al. Role of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) versus conventional imaging for breast cancer presurgical staging in young women or with dense breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(3):199–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moy L, Noz ME, Maguire GQ Jr, et al. Role of fusion of prone FDG-PET and magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts in the evaluation of breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16(4):369–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ohara M, Shigematsu H, Tsutani Y, et al. Role of FDG-PET/CT in evaluating surgical outcomes of operable breast cancer--usefulness for malignant grade of triple-negative breast v. Breast. 2013;22(5):958–63.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Comparison of FDG PET and MRI for evaluating the tumor extent of breast cancer and the impact of FDG PET on the systemic staging and prognosis of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer. 2009;16(2):97–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kitajima K, Yamano T, Fukushima K, et al. Correlation of the SUVmax of FDG-PET and ADC values of diffusion-weighted MR imaging with pathologic prognostic factors in breast carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(5):943–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Baba S, Isoda T, Maruoka Y, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of pretreatment SUV in 18F-FDG/PET in breast cancer: comparison with apparent diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(5):736–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jalaguier-Coudray A, Delarbre B, Brenot-Rossi I, et al. Contribution of FDG PET/CT for the optimization of the management of additional lesions detected on local staging breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(4):891–900.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):883–92.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Schmitz J, Schwab J, Schwenck J, et al. Decoding Intratumoral heterogeneity of breast cancer by multiparametric in vivo imaging: a translational study. Cancer Res. 2016;76(18):5512–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. He N, Xie C, Wei W, et al. A new, preoperative, MRI-based scoring system for diagnosing malignant axillary lymph nodes in women evaluated for breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(10):2602–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Harnan SE, Cooper KL, Meng Y, et al. Magnetic resonance for assessment of axillary lymph node status in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(11):928–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Robertson IJ, Hand F, Kell MR. FDG-PET/CT in the staging of local/regional metastases in breast cancer. Breast. 2011;20(6):491–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Veronesi U, De Cicco C, Galimberti VE, et al. A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(3):473–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Hahn S, et al. Diagnostic value of full-dose FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(10):1543–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Groheux D, Cochet A, Humbert O, Alberini JL, Hindie E, Mankoff D. (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Suppl 1):17S–26S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schootman M, Jeffe DB, Gillanders WE, Aft R. Racial disparities in the development of breast cancer metastases among older women: a multilevel study. Cancer. 2009;115(4):731–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(9):1452–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, et al. Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology. 2013;268(3):874–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Stolzmann P, Veit-Haibach P, Chuck N, et al. Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging. Investig Radiol. 2013;48(5):241–6.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Raad RA, Friedman KP, Heacock L, Ponzo F, Melsaether A, Chandarana H. Outcome of small lung nodules missed on hybrid PET/MRI in patients with primary malignancy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(2):504–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Reiner CS, Stolzmann P, Husmann L, et al. Protocol requirements and diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging for liver metastasis detection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(4):649–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dunnwald LK, Doot RK, Specht JM, et al. PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(8):2400–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Humbert O, Riedinger JM, Vrigneaud JM, et al. 18F-FDG PET derived tumor blood flow changes after one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts outcome in triple-negative breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(11):1707–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Marinovich ML, Sardanelli F, Ciatto S, et al. Early prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: systematic review of the accuracy of MRI. Breast. 2012;21(5):669–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796–804.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Liu Q, Wang C, Li P, Liu J, Huang G, Song S. The role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:3746232.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, 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(2):459–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pan L, Han Y, Sun X, Liu J, Gang H. FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136(7):1007–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A, et al. Comprehensive imaging of tumor recurrence in breast cancer patients using whole-body MRI at 1.5 and 3 T compared to FDG-PET-CT. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65(1):47–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. von Schulthess GK. Why buy a PET/MR for high end research? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(2):283–4.

    Google Scholar 

  65. von Schulthess GK, Veit-Haibach P. Workflow considerations in PET/MR imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(Supplement 2):19S–24S.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ma J. Dixon techniques for water and fat imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(3):543–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Belkic D, Belkic K. Molecular imaging in the framework of personalized cancer medicine. Isr Med Assoc J. 2013;15(11):665–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P, et al. Improved differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors with multiparametric 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(13):3540–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Menezes GL, Knuttel FM, Stehouwer BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MA. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: a literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(2):61–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Yaghoubi SS, et al. Novel strategy for a cocktail 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for evaluation of malignancy: results of the pilot-phase study. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(4):501–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

    Claire Tabouret-Viaud, Ismini Mainta, Valentina Garibotto & Osman Ratib

  2. Service de Médecine Nucléaire du Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon, France

    Claire Tabouret-Viaud

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland

    Valentina Garibotto & Osman Ratib

  4. Division of Radiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

    Diomidis Botsikas & Bénédicte M. A. Delattre

Authors
  1. Claire Tabouret-Viaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismini Mainta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valentina Garibotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diomidis Botsikas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bénédicte M. A. Delattre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Osman Ratib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Tabouret-Viaud .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Andrei Iagaru

  2. Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Thomas Hope

  3. Dept. of Nuclear Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Patrick Veit-Haibach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tabouret-Viaud, C., Mainta, I., Garibotto, V., Botsikas, D., Delattre, B.M.A., Ratib, O. (2018). PET/MRI in Breast Cancer. In: Iagaru, A., Hope, T., Veit-Haibach, P. (eds) PET/MRI in Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68517-5_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68517-5_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68516-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68517-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation