The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 106-30.10.3322/canjclin.56.2.10616514137Search in Google Scholar

2. Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 521-6.10.2214/ajr.158.3.13108251310825Search in Google Scholar

3. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancer missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184: 613-7.10.1148/radiology.184.3.15090411509041Search in Google Scholar

4. Adriaenssens N, Belsack D, Buyl R, Ruggiero L, Breucq C, De Mey J, Lievens P, Lamote J. Ultrasound elastography as an objective diagnostic measurement tool for lymphoedema of the treated breast in breast cancer patients following breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. Radiol Oncol 2012; 46: 284-95.10.2478/v10019-012-0033-z357289723412910Search in Google Scholar

5. Zebic-Sinkovec M, Hertl K, Kadivec M, Cavlek M, Podobnik G, Snoj M. Outcome of MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy - initial experience at Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia. Radiol Oncol 2012; 46: 97-105.10.2478/v10019-012-0016-0347293423077445Search in Google Scholar

6. Agnese DM. Advances in breast imaging. Surg Technol Int 2005; 14: 51-6.Search in Google Scholar

7. Scheidhauer K, Walter C, Seemann MD. FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med MolImaging 2004; 31: 70-9.10.1007/s00259-004-1528-715133634Search in Google Scholar

8. Thurlimann B, Muller A, Senn HJ. Management of primary breast cancer: an update. Onkologie 2004; 27: 175-9.Search in Google Scholar

9. Rausch DR, Hendrick RE. How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on your 1.5-T system. Radiographics 2006; 26: 1469-84.Search in Google Scholar

10. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004; 233: 830-49.10.1148/radiol.233303148415486214Search in Google Scholar

11. Winnekendonk G, Krug B, Warm M, Gohring UJ, Mallmann P, Lackner K. Diagnostic value of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. Rofo 2004; 176: 688-93.Search in Google Scholar

12. Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CTand whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology JAMA 2003; 290: 3199-206.Search in Google Scholar

13. Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 2007; 48 (Suppl 1): 78S-88S.Search in Google Scholar

14. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 2007; 242: 360-85.10.1148/radiol.242205111317255408Search in Google Scholar

15. Zangheri B, Messa C, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Landoni C, Fazio F. PET/CT and breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31 (Suppl 1): 135S-142S.10.1007/s00259-004-1536-715133636Search in Google Scholar

16. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl MedMol Imaging 2006; 33: 254-62.10.1007/s00259-005-1835-716258765Search in Google Scholar

17. Hodolic M. Role of F-18-choline PET/CT in evaluation of patients with prostate carcinoma. Radiol Oncol 2011; 45: 17-21.10.2478/v10019-010-0050-8342371422933929Search in Google Scholar

18. Kim JS, Jeong YJ, Sohn MH, Jeong HJ, Lim ST, Kim DW, et al. Usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT in subcutaneous panniculitis-like T cell lymphoma: disease extent and treatment response evaluation. Radiol Oncol 2012; 46: 279-83.10.2478/v10019-012-0017-z357289123412422Search in Google Scholar

19. Radan L, Ben-Haim S, Bar-Shalom R, Guralnik L, Israel O. The role of FDG-PET/CT in suspected recurrence of breast cancer. Cancer 2006; 107: 2545-51.10.1002/cncr.2229217063499Search in Google Scholar

20. Beresford M, Lyburn I, Sanghera B, Makris A, Wong WL. Serial integrated 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine PET/CT monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response in invasive ductal carcinoma. Breast J 2007; 13: 424-5.10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00454.x17593051Search in Google Scholar

21. Li D, Chen JH, Wang J, Ling R, Yao Q, Wang L. Value of fused F-18 FDG PET/ CT images in predicting efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer. [in Chinese]. Ai Zheng 2007; 26: 900-4.Search in Google Scholar

22. Reddy DH, Mendelson EB. Incorporating new imaging models in breast cancer management. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2005; 6: 135-45.10.1007/s11864-005-0021-215717995Search in Google Scholar

23. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrastenhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999; 213: 881-8.10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc0188110580970Search in Google Scholar

24. Heusner TA, Freudenberg LS, Kuehl H, Hauth AM, Haibach PV, Forsting M, et al. Whole-body PET/CT-mammography for staging breast cancer: initial results. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 743-8.10.1259/bjr/6964741318508873Search in Google Scholar

25. Ko BS, Noh WC, Kang SS, Park BW, Kang EY, Paik NS, et al. Changing patterns in the clinical characteristics of Korean breast cancer from 1996-2010 using an online nationwide breast cancer database. J Breast Cancer 2012; 15: 393-400.10.4048/jbc.2012.15.4.393354284623346167Search in Google Scholar

26. Andersson I. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: mammographic screening trial. Br J Med 1998; 297: 943-8.10.1136/bmj.297.6654.94318346363142562Search in Google Scholar

27. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, Thickman D, Hylton N, Warner E, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005; 103: 1898-905.10.1002/cncr.2097115800894Search in Google Scholar

28. Friedrich M. MRI of the breast: state of the art. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 707-25.10.1007/s0033000504639601956Search in Google Scholar

29. Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, Schnall MD, Reynolds C, Spitz F, et al. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2003; 98: 468-73.10.1002/cncr.1149012879462Search in Google Scholar

30. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for detection, diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001; 220: 3-30.Search in Google Scholar

31. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, Colpaert C, Schelfhout AM, Leyman P, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30: 501-7.10.1016/j.ejso.2004.02.00315135477Search in Google Scholar

32. Hollingsworth AB, Stough RG, O’Dell CA, Brekke CE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative locoregional staging. Am J Surg 2008; 196: 389-97.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.10.00918436185Search in Google Scholar

33. Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ, Kaplan JB, LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, et al. Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 171-8.10.2214/ajr.179.1.179017112076929Search in Google Scholar

34. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Umutlu L, Koeninger A, Freudenberg LS, Hauth AM, et al. Breast cancer staging in a single session: whole-body PET/CT mammography. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1215-22.10.2967/jnumed.108.05205018632831Search in Google Scholar

35. Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Pisano ED, Aronson N. Should FDG PET be used to decide whether a patient with an abnormal mammogram or breast finding at physical examination should undergo biopsy? Acad Radiol 2002; 9: 773-83.Search in Google Scholar