This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rieber, A Articles by Kuehn, T Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rieber, A Articles by Kuehn, T

Pre-operative staging of invasive breast cancer with MR mammography and/or PET: boon or bunk?

Departments of ¹ Diagnostic Radiology and ² Nuclear Medicine, University of Ulm, Robert-Koch-Str. 8, 89081 Ulm and ³ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm, Prittwitzstr. 43, 89081 Ulm, Germany

This study compared pre-operative staging with MR mammography (MRM) and positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with clinically suspected breast cancer according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, category 5. A total of 43 patients with breast cancer were examined. MRM included both T₂ weighted turbo spin echo sequences and T₁ weighted gradient echo sequences (three-dimensional fast low angle shot) before and after application of gadolinium-DPTA. All patients then underwent examination with a modern full-ring PET scanner following injection of fluorodeoxyglucose. We evaluated the efficacy of these methods in the diagnosis of primary tumour, contralateral carcinomas, bifocal, trifocal or multifocal disease, as well as non-invasive cancer portions and tumour size. Determination of patients' N-status was only attempted using PET. All findings were validated by histological examination. MRM was slightly superior to PET in several areas, such as in the respective methods' sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivities for MRM and PET were: 100% vs 93.0% in diagnosis of the primary tumour; 100% vs 100% in diagnosis of contralateral carcinomas; and 95.2% vs 92.5% in diagnosis of bifocal, trifocal or multifocal disease. Specificities for MRM and PET were: 100% vs 97.5% in diagnosis of contralateral carcinomas; and 96.8% vs 90.3% in diagnosis of bifocal, trifocal or multifocal disease. Non-invasive cancer portions and tumour sizes were equally well determined with both methods. The sensitivity of PET for detection of lymph node involvement was 80% and specificity 95%. MRM and PET were superior to conventional methods in nearly all areas studied; the findings of one or both of the methods impacted positively on patients' surgical treatment in 12.5–15% of cases. Pre-operative MRM and/or PET can have a positive influence on surgical treatment planning. Therefore, it appears useful to perform pre-operative staging with MRM or PET in these patients.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P Veit-Haibach, G Antoch, T Beyer, H Stergar, R Schleucher, E A M Hauth, and A Bockisch FDG-PET/CT in restaging of patients with recurrent breast cancer: possible impact on staging and therapy Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 80(955): 508 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Shah, S. K. Shah, and K. V. Greatrex Current Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Imaging: A Primer for the Primary Care Physician J Am Board Fam Med, November 1, 2005; 18(6): 478 - 490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. L. Rosen, T. G. Turkington, M. S. Soo, J. A. Baker, and R. E. Coleman Detection of Primary Breast Carcinoma with a Dedicated, Large-Field-of-View FDG PET Mammography Device: Initial Experience Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 527 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]