medigraphic.com

2008, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Cir Cir 2008; 76 (4)

18FDG PET/CT imaging in primary breast lymphoma and breast cancer

Estrada-Sánchez G, Ochoa-Carrillo FJ, Altamirano-Ley J

Language: Spanish
References: 45
Page: 279-286
PDF size: 179.77 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Of women between 15 and 29 years of age, 13.6% will die from breast cancer. For women between 30 and 64 years of age, 19% will die from breast cancer.
Methods: We studied 1728 oncological patients and 295 patients were included, 293 with breast cancer (17%) and two patients with primary breast lymphoma (0.1%).
Results: There were 98% females and 2% males. The mean SUVmax for the primary tumor was 4.2 ± 2.6 SD. The SUVmax for patients with primary breast lymphoma were 3.2 and 1.4. Sites of metastases were ganglia in neck (4.4% mean SUVmax 2.7), internal mammary lymph nodes (5% mean SUVmax 5.3), mediastinum (8.3% mean SUVmax 5.0), retroperitoneal (6 % mean SUVmax 5.4), ipsilateral axilla (94% mean SUVmax 4.5), contralateral axilla (4.4% mean SUVmax 2.8), pectoral muscle (10.2% mean SUVmax 2.6), pleura (4.4% mean SUVmax 3.9), lung (32.3% mean SUVmax 2.9), liver (19.1% mean SUVmax 4.5), bone (36.7%), adrenal gland (4.4% mean SUVmax 2.4), brain (4.4%), spleen and contralateral breast, one case each. One patient presented rebound thymic hyperplasia after chemotherapy. The mean SUVmax for blastic lesions was 5.4 ± 2.9 SD, for lytic lesions it was 6.7 ± 2.4 SD and for lesions not apparent was 4.6 ± 2.4SD. The incidence of a second primary was 4.7%, 2.1% ovarian, 1.4% lung, 0.3% lymphoma, 0.3% endometrium, 0.3% pancreas and 0.3% thyroid.
Conclusions: SUVmax for the primary tumor was similar to that reported in the literature. Values for metastatic bone lesions are higher in this study. The inclusion of PET/CT in the followup of breast lesions is cost efficient.


REFERENCES

  1. National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI). Mexico: February 2006. Available at http://www.inegi.gob.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/default.asp?c=269&e=

  2. American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures 2005. Atlanta, GA; American Cancer Society;2005.

  3. Schuster DM, Halkar RK. Molecular imaging in breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:885-908.

  4. Pichardo RP, Estrada G. Ca de mama. En: Altamirano J, Estrada G, Carreras JL, eds. PET y PET/CT en Oncología. México: Intersistemas; 2005. pp. 107-113.

  5. Godoy A, Ulloa V, Rodríguez F, Reinicke K, Yáñez AJ, García M de L, et al. Differential subcellular distribution of glucose transporters GLUT1-6 and GLUT9 in human cancer: ultrastructural localization of GLUT1 and GLUT5 in breast tumor tissues. J Cell Physiol 2006;207:614-627.

  6. Baker R, Slayden G, Jennings W. Multifocal primary breast lymphoma. South Med J 2005;98:1045-1048.

  7. Minn H, Soini I. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose scintigraphy in diagnosis and follow up of treatment in advanced breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1989;15:61-66.

  8. Kubota K, Matsuzawa T, Amemiya A, Kondo M, Fujiwara T, Watanuki S, et al. Imaging of breast cancer with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:1097-1098.

  9. Kumar R, Alavi A. Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in the management of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:1113-1122.

  10. Dehdashti F, Mortimer JE, Siegel BA, Griffeth LK, Bonasera TJ, Fusselman MJ, et al. Positron tomographic assessment of estrogen receptors in breast cancer: comparison with FDG-PET and in vitro receptor assays. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1766-1774.

  11. Kumar R, Zhuang H, Schnall M, Conant E, Damia S, Weinstein S, Chandra P, Czerniecki B, Alavi A. FDG PET positive lymph nodes are highly predictive of metastasis in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2006;27:231-236.

  12. Langsteger W, Heinisch M, Fogelman I. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-dihydroxyphenylalanine, 18F-choline, and 18F-fluoride in bone imaging with emphasis on prostate and breast. Semin Nucl Med 2006;36:73-92.

  13. Bénard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:153-162.

  14. Fueger BJ, Weber WA, Quon A, Crawford TL, Allen-Auerbach MS, Halpern BS, et al. Performance of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and integrated PET/CT in restaged breast cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 2005;7:369-376.

  15. Dose Schwarz J, Bader M, Jenicke L, Hemminger G, Jänicke F, Avril N. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1144–1150.

  16. Avril NE, Weber W. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43:189-204.

  17. Isasi CR, Moadel RM, Blaufox MD A meta-analysis of FDG-PET for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;90:105-112.

  18. Gallowitsch HJ, Kresnik E, Gasser J, Kumnig G, Igerc I, Mikosch P, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol 2003;38:250-256.

  19. Estrada SG, Mireles EM, Valverde N. Confiabilidad del CA 15-3 como seguimiento en las pacientes con carcinoma mamario y metástasis óseas. Rev Invest Científica Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición “Salvador Zubirán” 2003;2:18-21.

  20. Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK, Kaim AH, Steinert HC, Seifert B, et al. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1635-1644.

  21. Inoue T, Yutani K, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Shiba E, Noguchi S. Preoperative evaluation of prognosis in breast cancer patients by [(18)F]2-deoxy-2-fluoro- D-glucose- positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:273-278.

  22. Tran A, Pio BS, Khatibi B, Czernin J, Phelps ME, Silverman DH. 18F-FDG PET for staging breast cancer in patients with inner-quadrant versus outerquadrant tumors: comparison with long-term clinical outcome. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1455-1459.

  23. Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, Yamada K, Ushijima Y, Taniike K, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:1253-1258.

  24. Liu Y. PET-CT demonstration of extensive muscle metastases from breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2006;31:266-268.

  25. Korn RL, Yost AM, May CC, Kovalsky ER, Orth KM, Layton TA, Drumm D. Unexpected focal hypermetabolic activity in the breast: significance in patients undergoing 18F-FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:81-85.

  26. Kazerouni N, Greene MH, Lacey JV Jr, Mink PJ, Schairer C. Family history of breast cancer as a risk factor for ovarian cancer in a prospective study. Cancer 2006;107:1075-1083.

  27. Mellemkjaer L, Friis S, Olsen JH, Scélo G, Hemminki K, Tracey E, et al. Risk of second cancer among women with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2006;118:2285-2292.

  28. Vidal-Millán S, Zeichner-Gancz I, Flores-Estrada D, Vela-Rodríguez BE, Vázquez-López MI, Robles-Vidal CD, et al. A descriptive study of second primary malignancies associated to breast cancer in a Mexican Hispanic population. Med Oncol 2005;22:17-22.

  29. Santiago JF, Gonen M, Yeung H, Macapinlac H, Larson S. A retrospective analysis of the impact of 18F-FDG PET scans on clinical management of 133 breast cancer patients. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;50:61-67.

  30. Khandelwal AK, Garguilo GA. Therapeutic options for occult breast cancer: a survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons and review of the literature. Am J Surg 2005;190:609-613.

  31. Upalakalin JN, Collins LC, Tawa N, Parangi S. Carcinoid tumors in the breast. Am J Surg 2006;191:799-805.

  32. Vigliotti ML, Dell’olio M, La Sala A, Di Renzo N. Primary breast lymphoma: outcome of 7 patients and a review of the literature. Leuk Lymphoma 2005;46:1321-1327.

  33. Avilés A, Delgado S, Nambo MJ, Neri N, Murillo E, Cleto S. Primary breast lymphoma: results of a controlled clinical trial. Oncology 2005;69:256-260.

  34. Pisani F, Romano A, Anticoli Borza P, Marino M, Micheli A, Botti C. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the breast. A report of four cases. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2006;25:277-281.

  35. Kyoung Jung H, Kim EK, Yun M, Jung Kim M, Young Kwak J. Bilateral breasts involvement in Burkitt’s lymphoma detected only by FDG-PET. Clin Imaging 2006;30:57-59.

  36. Kumar R, Xiu Y, Dhurairaj T, Yu JQ, Alavi A, Zhuang H. F-18 FDG positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the breast. Clin Nucl Med 2005;30:246-248.

  37. Sehbai AS, Tallaksen RJ, Bennett J, Abraham J. Thymic hyperplasia after adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Thorac Imaging 2006;21:43-46.

  38. Kostakoglu L, Hardoff R, Mirtcheva R, Goldsmith SJ. PET-CT fusion imaging in differentiating physiologic from pathologic FDG uptake. RadioGraphics 2004;24:1411–1431.

  39. Janes SE, Lengyel JA, Singh S, Aluwihare N, Isgar B. Needle core biopsy for the assessment of unilateral breast masses in men. Breast 2006;15:273-275.

  40. Wise GJ, Roorda AK, Kalter R. Male breast disease. J Am Coll Surg 2004;42:255-269.

  41. Weinberg IN, Beylin D, Zavarzin V, Yarnall S, Stepanov PY, et al. Positron emission mammography: high-resolution biochemical breast imaging. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2005;4:55-60.

  42. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006;12:309-323.

  43. Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS, Baker JA, Coleman RE. Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience. Radiology 2005;234:527-534.

  44. Tafra L, Cheng Z, Uddo J, Lobrano MB, Stein W, et al. Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg 2005;190:628-632.

  45. Sloka JS, Hollett PD, Mathews M. Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2005;7:351-360.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com