A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Yayoi Yamamoto ; Youichiro Tasaki ; Yukiko Kuwada…
• 关键词：Positron emission mammography ; Breast cancer screening ; FDG ; PET screening
• 刊名：Annals of Nuclear Medicine
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：30
• 期：2
• 页码：130-137
• 全文大小：738 KB
• 参考文献：1.Minamimoto R, Senda M, Terauchi T, Jinnouchi S, Inoue T, Iinuma T, et al. Analysis of various malignant neoplasms detected by FDG-PET cancer screening program: based on a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:45–54. doi:10.​1007/​s12149-010-0428-0 .CrossRef PubMed
  2.The results of questionnaires. In: PET and PET. http://​www.​jcpet.​jp/​1-4-4C . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
  3.Minamimoto R, Senda M, Uno K, Jinnouchi S, Iinuma T, Ito K, et al. Performance profile of FDG-PET and PET/CT for cancer screening on the basis of a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:481–98.CrossRef PubMed
  4.Kojima S, Zhou B, Teramukai S, Hara A, Kosaka N, Matsuo Y, et al. Cancer screening of healthy volunteers using whole-body 18F-FDG-PET scans: the Nishidai clinic study. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1842–8.CrossRef PubMed
  5.Terauchi T, Murano T, Daisaki H, Kanou D, Shoda H, Kakinuma R, et al. Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d -glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:379–85. doi:10.​1007/​s12149-008-0130-7 .CrossRef PubMed
  6.Ohuchi N, Yoshida K, Kimura M, Ouchi A, Kamioki S, Shiiba K, et al. Improved detection rate of early breast cancer in mass screening combined with mammography. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1993;84:807–12.CrossRef PubMed
  7.Tozaki M, Isomoto I, Kojima Y, Kubota K, Kuroki Y, Ohnuki K, et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for screening and imaging diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:28–36. doi:10.​1007/​s12282-014-0557-8 .CrossRef PubMed
  8.Bénard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:153–62.PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  9.Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:84–99.CrossRef PubMed
  10.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;18:3495–502.PubMed
  11.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;12:309–23.CrossRef PubMed
  12.Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE. Berg WAInterpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:971–81. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​10.​5081 .CrossRef
  13.Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, Narayanan D, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258:59–72.PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  14.MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1666–75. doi:10.​2967/​jnumed.​109.​064345 .PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  15.Yamamoto Y, Tasaki Y, KuwadaY Ozawa Y, Katayama K, Kanemaki Y, et al. Positron emission mammography (PEM): reviewing standardized semiquantitative method. ANM. 2013;27:795–801.
  16.Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:793–806.CrossRef PubMed
  17.Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. 1995;75:2507–17.CrossRef PubMed
  18.Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:27–30.PubMed
  19.Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD001877.​pub .PubMed
  20.Matsuda T, Marugame T, Kamo K, Katanoda K, Ajiki W, Sobue v, Japan Cancer Surveillance Research Group. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in based on data from 12 population-based cancer registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;2011(41):139–47. doi:10.​1093/​jjco/​hyq169 .
  21.Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.CrossRef PubMed
  22.Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901–10.CrossRef
  23.Grobner T. Gadolinium—a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2006;21:1104–8.CrossRef
  24.Kribben A, Witzke O, Hillen U, Barkhausen J, Daul AE, Erbel R. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1621–8. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jacc.​2008.​12.​061 .CrossRef PubMed
  25.Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast. 2012;21:66–71.CrossRef PubMed
  26.Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, et al. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:260–75.CrossRef PubMed
  27.Yamamoto Y, Ozawa Y, Kubouchi K, Nakamura S, Nakajima Y, Inoue I. Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:21–5.CrossRef PubMed
  28.American College of Radiology national mammography database. http://​www.​acr.​org/​Quality-Safety/​National-Radiology-Data-Registry/​National-Mammography-DB . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
  29.Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, European Commission, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006.
  30.The concept for future cancer screening program of our country. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. http://​www.​mhlw.​go.​jp/​shingi/​2008/​03/​s0301-4.​html . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
  31.Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE, The J, Velasquez MV, Kahn S, et al. Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:23–36. doi:10.​1007/​s00259-010-1588-9 .PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  32.Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, Quon A, Villalpando J, Dahlborn M, et al. Relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1238–42.PubMed
  33.Kumar R, Mitchell S, Alavi A. 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1423.PubMed
  34.Mavi A, Cermik TF, Urhan M, Puskulcu H, Basu S, Cucchiara AJ, et al. The effect of age, menopausal state, and breast density on (18)F-FDG uptake in normal glandular breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:347–52. doi:10.​2967/​jnumed.​109.​068718 .CrossRef PubMed
  35.Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2010;2008(299):2151–63. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​299.​18.​2151 (Erratum. In: JAMA; 303(15): 1482).
  36.International Commission of the International Commission on Radiological. Protection (ICRCP Publication 60). Ann ICRP. 1991;21:1–20.CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Yayoi Yamamoto (1)
  Youichiro Tasaki (1)
  Yukiko Kuwada (1)
  Yukihiko Ozawa (1)
  Tomio Inoue (2)
  
  1. Yuai Clinic, 1-6-2 Kitashinyokohama, Kohoku-Ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 223-0059, Japan
  2. Department of Radiology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan
  
• 刊物主题：Nuclear Medicine; Imaging / Radiology;
• 出版者：Springer Japan
• ISSN：1864-6433

文摘

Objective Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) have had a considerable impact on the detection of various malignancies. PET and PET/CT are minimally invasive methods that can provide whole-body imaging at one time. Therefore, an FDG-PET cancer screening program has been widely used in Japan. However, the breast cancer detection rate of FDG-PET cancer screening is relatively low. Therefore, FDG-PET screening is not recommended for breast cancer screening. Positron emission mammography (PEM) is a high-resolution molecular breast imaging technology. PEM can detect small breast cancers that cannot be detected on PET or PET/CT images due to limited spatial resolution. We have performed opportunistic breast cancer screening using PEM since 2011. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report regarding PEM breast cancer screening.