Positron emission tomography/computed tomography using 2‑deoxy‑2‑fluoro‑18‑fluoro‑D‑glucose peri‑tumoral halo uptake layer method outperforms magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound methods in tumor size measurement of breast cancer

Wu,Yingzhe; Lu,Yuezhong; Xu,Chentao; Lin,Bin

doi:10.3892/ol.2020.11492

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography using 2‑deoxy‑2‑fluoro‑18‑fluoro‑D‑glucose peri‑tumoral halo uptake layer method outperforms magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound methods in tumor size measurement of breast cancer

Authors:
- Yingzhe Wu
- Yuezhong Lu
- Chentao Xu
- Bin Lin
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, Changxing People's Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313100, P.R. China, Department of Pharmacy, Changxing People's Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313100, P.R. China
Published online on: March 29, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11492
Pages: 3881-3888
Copyright: © Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

As a non‑invasive method, positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) using 2‑deoxy‑2‑fluoro‑18-fluoro-D-glucose (18F‑FDG) is applied as a useful modality in the diagnosis of breast cancer. By evaluating glucose metabolism, this method can also be used in staging, restaging and post‑therapeutic response evaluation. To evaluate the reliability of the 18F‑FDG PET/CT‑based peri‑tumoral halo uptake layer (PHL) method for assessing tumor size, a total of 79 female patients with breast cancer who underwent 18F‑FDG PET/CT, breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations were included in the present study. Upon examination by two independent nuclear medicine radiologists, tumor sizes were estimated by 18F‑FDG PET/CT using margins defined as the inner line of the PHL. Pathological tumor sizes were evaluated on the direction of largest diameter indicated by previous imaging examination, which were also utilized as final standards. Statistical analysis of the results suggested that 18F‑FDG PET/CT had a more linear correlation with pathology compared with breast ultrasound (r2=0.89 vs. 0.73) and MRI (r2=0.89 vs. 0.69) in terms of tumor size estimation, including a significantly lower bias in size difference relative to pathology. 18F‑FDG PET/CT also exhibited improved performance compared with breast ultrasound and MRI in T stage assessment. These results indicated that the 18F‑FDG PET/CT‑based PHL method was superior to breast ultrasound and MRI, and that it provides sufficient reliability and high accuracy for measuring tumor size in patients with breast cancer.

View Figures

View References

1	Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E and Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 61:69–90. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Ghoncheh M, Pournamdar Z and Salehiniya H: Incidence and mortality and epidemiology of breast cancer in the world. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 17((S3)): 43–46. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	McGhan LJ, Wasif N, Gray RJ, Giurescu ME, Pizzitola VJ, Lorans R, Ocal IT, Stucky CC and Pockaj BA: Use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for invasive lobular cancer: Good, better, but maybe not the best? Ann Surg Oncol. 17 (Suppl 3):255–262. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Pop CF, Stanciu-Pop C, Drisis S, Radermeker M, Vandemerckt C, Noterman D, Moreau M, Larsimont D, Nogaret JM and Veys I: The impact of breast MRI workup on tumor size assessment and surgical planning in patients with early breast cancer. Breast J. 24:927–933. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T and Wall C: Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ. 147:1459–1476. 1992.PubMed/NCBI
6	Don S, Choi E and Min D: Breast mass segmentation in digital mammography using graph cuts. Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology. Lee G, Howard D and Ślęzak D: Vol. 206:Springer. (Berlin, Heidelberg). 88–96. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
7	Brem RF, Ioffe M, Rapelyea JA, Yost KG, Weigert JM, Bertrand ML and Stern LH: Invasive lobular carcinoma: Detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 192:379–383. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Sarno A, Mettivier G and Russo P: Dedicated breast computed tomography: Basic aspects. Med Phys. 42:2786–2804. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Onesti JK, Mangus BE, Helmer SD and Osland JS: Breast cancer tumor size: Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements. Am J Surg. 196:844–848; discussion 849-850. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Narod SA: Age of diagnosis, tumor size, and survival after breast cancer: Implications for mammographic screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 128:259–266. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Nyström L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Rydén S, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, et al: Breast cancer screening with mammography: Overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 341:973–978. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Pilewskie M, Hirsch A, Eaton A, Stempel M and Gemignani ML: Breast cancer in the elderly: Is MRI helpful? Breast J. 21:651–657. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Hatada I, Hayashizaki Y, Hirotsune S, Komatsubara H and Mukai T: A genomic scanning method for higher organisms using restriction sites as landmarks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 88:9523–9527. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Boetes C, Veltman J, van Die L, Bult P, Wobbes T and Barentsz JO: The role of MRI in invasive lobular carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 86:31–37. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Lo GG, Ai V, Chan JKF, Li KW, Cheung PSY, Wong TT, Ma M, Lee R and Chien D: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of breast lesions: First experiences at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 33:63–69. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, Kuhn W and Schild HH: Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 23:8469–8476. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Burkett BJ and Hanemann CW: A review of supplemental screening ultrasound for breast cancer: Certain populations of women with dense breast tissue may benefit. Acad Radiol. 23:1604–1609. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Paydary K, Seraj SM, Zadeh MZ, Emamzadehfard S, Shamchi SP, Gholami S, Werner TJ and Alavi A: The evolving role of FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of breast cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 21:1–10. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Uematsu T, Kasami M and Yuen S: Comparison of FDG PET and MRI for evaluating the tumor extent of breast cancer and the impact of FDG PET on the systemic staging and prognosis of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer. 16:97–104. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Nogami Y, Iida M, Banno K, Kisu I, Adachi M, Nakamura K, Umene K, Masuda K, Tominaga E, Tanaka K, et al: Application of FDG-PET in cervical cancer and endometrial cancer: Utility and future prospects. Anticancer Res. 34:585–592. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
21	Park SH, Seo M, Choi HJ, Bae K, Bang M and Jun S: More accurate than MRI measurement of tumor size in breast cancer by using the peri-tumoral halo uptake layer method of the 18F-FDG PET/CT scan. Hell J Nucl Med. 21:108–114. 2018.PubMed/NCBI
22	Jun S, Kim H and Nam HY: A new method for segmentation of FDG PET metabolic tumour volume using the peritumoural halo layer and a 10-step colour scale. A study in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma. Nucl Med (Stuttg). 54:272–285. 2015.
23	Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, Bassett LW, Berry D, Bland KI, Borgen PI, Clark GM, Edge SB, Hayes DF, et al: Staging system for breast cancer: revisions for the 6th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Surg Clin North Am. 83:803–819. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W, Merritt C and Rubin E: Breast imaging reporting and data system. BI-RADS. 2003.
25	Zhengfeng L: Diagnostic ultrasound system quality control testing methods. Chin Med Dev. 07:27–32. 2011.(In Chinese).
26	Hengdi W: Image quality control standards and procedures of MRI devices. POSTRUM. 28:19–23. 2013.(In Chinese).
27	Jun Y, Jianwei W, Shuyue A and Wei H: Quality control and administration of PET/CT. Chin Med Euipment J. 27:71–73. 2006.(In Chinese).
28	Grimsby GM, Gray R, Dueck A, Carpenter S, Stucky CC, Aspey H, Giurescu ME and Pockaj B: Is there concordance of invasive breast cancer pathologic tumor size with magnetic resonance imaging? Am J Surg. 198:500–504. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Ciatto S, Bosco D, Campanino PP, Castellano I, Sapino A and Gandini G: Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med (Torino). 118:1119–1136. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
30	Lai HW, Chen DR, Wu YC, Chen CJ, Lee CW, Kuo SJ, Chen ST and Wu HK: Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging with sonography in the prediction of breast cancer tumor size: A concordance analysis with histopathologically determined tumor size. Ann Surg Oncol. 22:3816–3823. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Gruber I, Rueckert M, Kagan K, Staebler A, Siegmann KC, Hartkopf A, Wallwiener D and Hahn M: Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 13:3282013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J and Velasco JM: Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 182:351–354. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Jethava A, Ali S, Wakefield D, Crowell R, Sporn J and Vrendenburgh J: Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in predicting breast tumor size: Comparative analysis of MRI vs histopathological assessed breast tumor size. Conn Med. 79:261–267. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
34	Caresia Aroztegui AP, García Vicente AM, Alvarez Ruiz S, Delgado Bolton RC, Orcajo Rincon J, Garcia Garzon JR, de Arcocha Torres M and Garcia-Velloso MJ: 18F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Evidence-based recommendations in initial staging. Tumour Biol. 39:10104283177282852017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Pritchard KI, Julian JA, Holloway CM, McCready D, Gulenchyn KY, George R, Hodgson N, Lovrics P, Perera F, Elavathil L, et al: Prospective study of 2-[¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the assessment of regional nodal spread of disease in patients with breast cancer: An Ontario clinical oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 30:1274–1279. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
36	Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, Hahn S, Bockisch A, Lauenstein T, Antoch G, et al: Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 39:852–863. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Avril N, Rosé CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, Weber W, Ziegler S, Graeff H and Schwaiger M: Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: Use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 18:3495–3502. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Hyun SH, Ahn HK, Park YH, Im YH, Kil WH, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Cho EY and Choi JY: Volume-based metabolic tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with an increased risk of recurrence in breast cancer. Radiology. 275:235–244. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Kim J, Yoo SW, Kang SR, Cho SG, Oh JR, Chong A, Min JJ, Bom HS, Yoon JH and Song HC: Prognostic significance of metabolic tumor volume measured by (18)F-FDG PET/CT in operable primary breast cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 46:278–285. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Oh JR, Seo JH, Chong A, Min JJ, Song HC, Kim YC and Bom HS: Whole-body metabolic tumour volume of 18F-FDG PET/CT improves the prediction of prognosis in small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 39:925–935. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
41	Jun S, Park JG and Seo Y: Accurate FDG PET tumor segmentation using the peritumoral halo layer method: A study in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Imaging. 18:352018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI