Breast Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness of Positron Emission Mammography and MR Imaging in Presurgical Planning for the Ipsilateral Breast

被引:126
作者
Berg, Wendie A. [1 ]
Madsen, Kathleen S. [2 ]
Schilling, Kathy [3 ]
Tartar, Marie [4 ]
Pisano, Etta D. [5 ]
Larsen, Linda Hovanessian [6 ]
Narayanan, Deepa [7 ]
Ozonoff, Al [8 ]
Miller, Joel P. [2 ]
Kalinyak, Judith E. [7 ]
机构
[1] Amer Radiol Serv, Lutherville Timonium, MD USA
[2] Certus Int, St Louis, MO USA
[3] Boca Raton Community Hosp, Boca Raton, FL USA
[4] Scripps Green Hosp, Scripps Clin, La Jolla, CA USA
[5] Univ N Carolina, Dept Radiol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[6] Univ So Calif, Norris Canc Ctr, Los Angeles, CA USA
[7] Naviscan, San Diego, CA USA
[8] Boston Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat, Boston, MA USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
WOMEN; CARCINOMA; ACCURACY; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; TOMOGRAPHY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.10100454
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To determine the performance of positron emission mammography (PEM), as compared with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including the effect on surgical management, in ipsilateral breasts with cancer. Materials and Methods: Four hundred seventy-two women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were offered breast-conserving surgery consented from September 2006 to November 2008 to participate in a multicenter institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol. Participants underwent contrast material-enhanced MR imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PEM in randomized order; resultant images were interpreted independently. Added biopsies and changes in surgical procedure for the ipsilateral breast were correlated with histopathologic findings. Performance characteristics were compared by using the McNemar test and generalized estimating equations. Results: Three hundred eighty-eight women (median age, 58 years; age range, 26-93 years; median estimated tumor size, 1.5 cm) completed the study. Additional cancers were found in 82 (21%) women (82 ipsilateral breasts; median tumor size, 0.7 cm). Twenty-eight (34%) of the 82 breasts were identified with both PEM and MR imaging; 21 (26%) breasts, with MR imaging only; 14 (17%) breasts, with PEM only; and seven (8.5%) breasts, with mammography and ultrasonography. Twelve (15%) cases of additional cancer were missed at all imaging examinations. Integration of PEM and MR imaging increased cancer detection-to 61 (74%) of 82 breasts versus 49 (60%) of 82 breasts identified with MR imaging alone (P < .001). Of 306 breasts without additional cancer, 279 (91.2%) were correctly assessed with PEM compared with 264 (86.3%) that were correctly assessed with MR imaging (P = .03). The positive predictive value of biopsy prompted by PEM findings (47 [66%] of 71 cases) was higher than that of biopsy prompted by MR findings (61 [53%] of 116 cases) (P = .016). Of 116 additional cancers, 61 (53%) were depicted by MR imaging and 47 (41%) were depicted by PEM (P = .043). Fifty-six (14%) of the 388 women required mastectomy: 40 (71%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 20 (36%) were identified with PEM (P,.001). Eleven (2.8%) women underwent unnecessary mastectomy, which was prompted by only MR findings in five women, by only PEM findings in one, and by PEM and MR findings in five. Thirty-three (8.5%) women required wider excision: 24 (73%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 22 (67%) were identified with PEM. Conclusion: PEM and MR imaging had comparable breast-level sensitivity, although MR imaging had greater lesion-level sensitivity and more accurately depicted the need for mastectomy. PEM had greater specificity at the breast and lesion levels. Eighty-nine (23%) participants required more extensive surgery: 61 (69%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 41 (46%) were identified with PEM (P = .003). Fourteen (3.6%) women had tumors seen only at PEM. (C) RSNA, 2010
引用
收藏
页码:59 / 72
页数:14
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
Abe O, 2005, LANCET, V366, P2087, DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66544-0
[2]   Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose:: Use and limitations [J].
Avril, N ;
Rosé, CA ;
Schelling, M ;
Dose, J ;
Kuhn, W ;
Bense, S ;
Weber, W ;
Ziegler, S ;
Graeff, H ;
Schwaiger, M .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2000, 18 (20) :3495-3502
[3]   Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer [J].
Berg, WA ;
Gutierrez, L ;
NessAiver, MS ;
Carter, WB ;
Bhargavan, M ;
Lewis, RS ;
Ioffe, OB .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 233 (03) :830-849
[4]   High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Weinberg, Irving N. ;
Narayanan, Deepa ;
Lobrano, Mary E. ;
Ross, Eric ;
Amodei, Laura ;
Tafra, Lorraine ;
Adler, Lee P. ;
Uddo, Joseph ;
Stein, William, III ;
Levine, Edward A. .
BREAST JOURNAL, 2006, 12 (04) :309-323
[5]   Association of Routine Pretreatment Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Time to Surgery, Mastectomy Rate, and Margin Status [J].
Bleicher, Richard J. ;
Ciocca, Robin M. ;
Egleston, Brian L. ;
Sesa, Linda ;
Evers, Kathryn ;
Sigurdson, Elin R. ;
Morrow, Monica .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2009, 209 (02) :180-187
[6]   Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography [J].
Davis, PL ;
Staiger, MJ ;
Harris, KB ;
Ganott, MA ;
Klementaviciene, J ;
McCarthy, KS ;
Tobon, H .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1996, 37 (01) :1-9
[7]   Breast carcinoma: Effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach [J].
Fischer, U ;
Kopka, L ;
Grabbe, E .
RADIOLOGY, 1999, 213 (03) :881-888
[8]  
HOLLAND R, 1985, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V56, P979, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19850901)56:5<979::AID-CNCR2820560502>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-N
[10]   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].
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Macaskill, Petra ;
Lord, Sarah J. ;
Warren, Ruth M. ;
Dixon, J. Michael ;
Irwig, Les .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 26 (19) :3248-3258