Comparative Analysis of Imaging Sensitivity of Positron Emission Mammography and Whole-Body PET in Relation to Tumor Size

Yamamoto, Yayoi; Ozawa, Yukihiko; Kubouchi, Kouichi; Nakamura, Seigo; Nakajima, Yasuo; Inoue, Tomio

doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000000617

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…PET imaging in breast cancer is most often used in the form of PET computed tomography (CT) with fluorine‐18 fludeoxyglucose ( 18 F‐FDG) to assess distant metastatic disease and to look for and monitor recurrent disease . Positron emission mammography (PEM) is also used in breast imaging, but this system has a higher spatial resolution and smaller field of view than whole‐body PET imaging and is not currently integrated with MRI for breast imaging . As such, PEM is not discussed in this review.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

PET/MRI in Breast Cancer

Pujara

Kim

Axelrod

et al. 2018

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

PET/MRI in Breast Cancer

Pujara

Kim

Axelrod

et al. 2018

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With an improved resolution of PEM, some research showed that the detection rate of PEM was 2.3%, which is better than that of PET/CT (Yamamoto et al 2015(Yamamoto et al , 2016. Other research suggested that the sensitivity of PEM is significantly better than that of PET in tumors that are 20 mm or smaller in size (Eo et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Newly-Developed Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) Device for the Detection of Small Breast Cancer

Yanai

Itoh

Higuchi

et al. 2018

Tohoku J. Exp. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positron emission mammography (PEM) has higher detection sensitivity for breast cancer compared with whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) due to higher spatial resolution. We have developed a new PEM device with high resolution over a wide field of view. This PEM device comprises novel scintillation crystals, praseodymium-doped lutetium aluminum garnet (Pr:LuAG). In the present study, the clinical use of the newly developed PEM for the detection of small breast cancer was compared with that of the conventional PET-computed tomography (PET/CT). Eighty-two patients with breast cancer less than 20 mm (UICC T1) participated in this study, including 23 patients with T1a or T1b breast cancer (less than 10 mm). Histologically-proved lesions were examined by PET/CT and PEM on the same day after injection of [F]fluoro-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose ([F]FDG), a marker of glycolytic activity. The newly developed PEM showed better sensitivity of cancer detection compared with PET/CT especially in case of the small T1a or T1b lesions. Moreover, when the conventional PET/CT and new PEM were combined, the detection sensitivity with [F]FDG molecular imaging for T1 (N = 82) and T1a plus T1b breast cancer (N = 23) were 90% and 70%, respectively. The uptake of [F]FDG was proportional to the histological malignancy of breast cancer. Using the newly-developed PEM with [F]FDG, we are able to identify and characterize exactly the small breast tumors less than 10 mm in combination with the conventional PET/CT. These data indicate that PEM and PET/CT are synergic and complementary for the detection of small breast cancer.

show abstract

“…positron emission mammography (PEM) and a tomographic technique using a ring-shaped scanner (ring-shaped dbPET) [7]. PEM systems depict breast tissue via soft compression of the breast with two opposing plate-like detectors and have higher sensitivity than whole-body PET/CT [8][9][10] while ring-shaped dbPET scanners can visualise breast cancer more clearly than whole-body PET/CT [11,12]. These high-resolution breast PET systems have greater photon sensitivity and can improve spatial resolution by setting the detector close to the breast, reducing respiratory movement, and using smaller detection units with reconstruction methods that are different to those used for whole-body PET/CT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography: Can small breast cancer near the chest wall be detected ?

Satoh¹,

Imai²,

Omiya³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose : We assessed image quality of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) at the detector's edge by phantom and clinical studies.Methods: A breast phantom with four spheres (16, 10, 7.5, and 5 mm in diameter) was filled with 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution of sphere-to-background ratio was 8:1. It was positioned such that the spheres were five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and % background variability ( %N 5mm ), % contrast ( %Q H ,5mm ), contrast-to-noise ratio ( Q H ,5mm / N 5mm ), and coefficient of variation of the background ( CV background ) were calculated. Next, tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was also compared between dbPET and PET/computed tomography (CT).Results: As closer to the detector’s edge, the %N 5mm and CV background increased and %Q H ,5mm and Q H ,5mm / N 5mm decreased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. With regard to clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.1±6.2 vs. 6.5±3.4, p =0.0001) and non-peripheral (13.1±7.1 vs. 7.7±7.4, p =0.0004) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups (12.1±6.2 vs. 13.1±7.1, p= 0.6367).Conclusion : In the phantom study, the image quality decreased closer to the detector’s edge than at a depth of 1/8. In clinical studies, however, the lesion detectability of dbPET was the same even if the lesion was close to the detector’s edge or not, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall even in young women with small breasts.

show abstract

Comparative Analysis of Imaging Sensitivity of Positron Emission Mammography and Whole-Body PET in Relation to Tumor Size

Abstract: The imaging sensitivity of PEM was higher than that of WBPET in Japanese women younger than 50 years. Positron emission mammography showed significant sensitivity in tumors smaller than 1 cm, which has been a weak point for WBPET.

Cited by 25 publications

References 18 publications

PET/MRI in Breast Cancer

PET/MRI in Breast Cancer

Newly-Developed Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) Device for the Detection of Small Breast Cancer

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography: Can small breast cancer near the chest wall be detected ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About