J Korean Soc Radiol.  2012 Feb;66(2):169-175. 10.3348/jksr.2012.66.2.169.

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/CT Scan Findings for Ductal Carcinomas of Breast: Association of Standardized Uptake Value and Histological Findings

• Bae SY
• Lee EH
• Park JM
• Kwak JJ

• KMID: 1439410
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2012.66.2.169

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the factors associated with variations in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (18F-FDG PET/CT) uptake in ductal carcinomas of the breast.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We enrolled 216 ductal carcinoma cases that underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT. We evaluated the positivity and measured peak standardized uptake value (pSUV) of lesions that underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT. We analyzed the correlation between pSUV and invasiveness, lesion size, and the histologic factors of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).
RESULTS
In the 18F-FDG PET/CT of ductal carcinomas, sensitivity was 90.2%, positive and negative predictive values were 99.5% and 25.0%, respectively. In ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and IDC, the sensitivities were 68.8% and 92.0%, respectively. The mean pSUV of true positive (TP) DCIS and IDC were 2.6 and 5.1 (p < 0.05), respectively, whereas the false negative (FN) were 1.3 and 1.2 (p > 0.05), respectively, and that of false positive (FP) and true negative (TN) lesions were 2.2 and 0.9, respectively. The mean size of TP DCIS and IDC were 4.5 cm and 2.7 cm (p < 0.05), respectively, whereas the mean size of FN DCIS and IDC were 1.5 cm and 1.4 cm (p > 0.05), respectively, and that of FP and TN lesions were 1.8 cm and 1.2 cm respectively. Among the histological factors affecting IDC, mitosis showed the best correlation with pSUV (rho = 0.5).
CONCLUSION
For 18F-FDG PET/CT of ductal carcinomas, the positive predictive value was 99.5% and the FN rate was 9.7%. False negative factors included DCIS and an IDC < 1.5 cm, whereas mitosis was the TP factor.

MeSH Terms

Carcinoma, Ductal
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Electrons
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Mitosis
Positron-Emission Tomography
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

Reference

1. Jadvar H, Alavi A, Gambhir SS. 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med. 2009. 50:1820–1827.

2. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, Schelling M, Weber W, Jänicke F, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001. 42:9–16.

3. Buck AK, Schirrmeister H, Mattfeldt T, Reske SN. Biological characterisation of breast cancer by means of PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004. 31:Suppl 1. S80–S87.

4. Avril N, Rosé CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000. 18:3495–3502.

5. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006. 98:267–274.

6. Crowe JP Jr, Adler LP, Shenk RR, Sunshine J. Positron emission tomography and breast masses: comparison with clinical, mammographic, and pathological findings. Ann Surg Oncol. 1994. 1:132–140.

7. Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Chiesa C, Pascali C, Bogni A, et al. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and postoperative histopathology, hormone receptor status, thymidine labelling index and p53 in primary breast cancer: a preliminary observation. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998. 25:1429–1434.

8. Jeong SH, Lee EH, Park JM, Lee HK, Yi BH, Choi N. Factors affecting 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in breast cancer. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2010. 63:287–292.

9. Rosen EL, Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics. 2007. 27:Suppl 1. S215–S229.

10. Oshida M, Uno K, Suzuki M, Nagashima T, Hashimoto H, Yagata H, et al. Predicting the prognoses of breast carcinoma patients with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-fluoro[18F]-D-glucose. Cancer. 1998. 82:2227–2234.

11. 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.

12. 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. 9:773–783.