Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

18F-FDG PET/CT with Contrast Enhancement for Evaluation of Axillary Lymph Node Involvement in T1 Breast Cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography ((PET) safely predicts axillary status in patients with breast cancer, but is not sufficiently accurate in early breast cancer patients. This study analyzed the value of 18F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) with contrast enhancement in detecting axillary lymph node involvement in T1 breast cancer patients.

Methods

Contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed within 20 days of surgery in 143 breast cancer patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size. The patients underwent either axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), and histopathology reports were used to provide the definitive diagnosis against which the contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT study results were compared.

Results

The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting axillary involvement were 70.0%, 92.2%, 88.8%, and 77.8%, respectively, in the entire series of 143 patients, with eight false-positive and 12 false negative results. The false-negative results were associated with the number of metastatic lymph nodes and the rate of FDG uptake.

Conclusion

Contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT cannot replace histologic staging using SLNB in patients with breast cancer, but 18F-FDG PET/CT increases the sensitivity for predicting axillary node metastasis, and allows for a selective approach to either ALND or SLNB, even in patients with T1 breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miller WR, Ellis IO, Sainsbury JR, Dixon JM (1994) ABC of breast diseases. Prognostic factors BMJ 309:1573–1576

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Amersi F, Hansen NM (2006) The benefits and limitations of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Curr Treat Options Oncol 7:141–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE (1989) Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 63:181–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kwan W, Jackson J, Weir LM, Dingee C, McGregor G, Olivotto IA (2002) Chronic arm morbidity after curative breast cancer treatment:prevalence and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol 20:4242–4248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schulze T, Mucke J, Markwardt J, Schlag PM, Bembenek A (2006) Long-term morbidity of patients with early breast cancer after sentinel lymph node biopsy compared to axillary lymph node dissection. J Surg Oncol 93:109–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McCready D, Holloway C, Shelley W, Down N, Robinson P, Sinclair S et al (2005) Surgical management of early stage invasive breast cancer: a practice guideline. Can J Surg 48(3):185–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. de Freitas R, Jr CMV, Schneider SV, Nicolau MA, Marussi E (1991) Accuracy of ultrasound and clinical examination in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 17(3):240–244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sismondi P, Ponzone R, Biglia N, Roagna R, Cacciari F, Maggiorotto F (2003) Sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: yes, less surgery is better surgery. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 24(2):107–112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gipponi M, Bassetti C, Canavese G, Catturich A, Di Somma C, Vecchio C et al (2004) Sentinel lymph node as a new marker for therapeutic planning in breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol 85(3):102–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G, Payne E (2007) Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography in selected cancers. Health Technol Assess 11(44):iii–iv, xi-267

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith IC, Ogston KN, Whitford P, Smith FW, Sharp P, Norton M et al (1998) Staging of the axilla in breast cancer: accurate in vivo assessment using positron emission tomography with 2-(fluorine-18)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Ann Surg 228:220–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Veronesi U, De Cicco C, Galimberti VE, Fernandez JR, Rotmensz N, Viale G et al (2007) A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases. Ann Oncol 18:473–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wahl RL, Siegel BA, Coleman RE, Gatsonis CG; PET Study Group (2004) Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the staging breast cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol 22:277–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weir L, Worsley D, Bernstein V (2005) The value of FDG positron emission tomography in the management of patients with breast cancer. Breast J 11:204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW (2007) PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 242:360–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adler LP, Crowe JP, al-Kaisi NK, Sunshine JL (1993) Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET. Radiology 3:743–750

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bombardieri E, Crippa F, Maffioli L, Chiti A, Castellani MR, Greco M et al (1996) Axillary lymph node metastases detection with nuclear medicine approaches in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: can positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-FDG be considered as the best method? Int J Oncol 8:693–699

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA, Takasugi J, Vesselle H, Eary JF, Shanley TJ, et al (2001) 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect mediastinal or internal mammary metastases in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(15):3516–3523

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Danforth DN, Aloj L, Carrasquillo JA, Bacharach SL, Chow C, Zujewski J et al (2002) The role of 18F-FDG-PET in the local/regional evaluation of women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 75:135–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gil-Rendo A, Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Regueira FM, Beorlegui C, Cervera M (2006) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with sentinel lymph node biopsy for evaluation of axillary involvement in breast cancer. Br J Surg 93:707–712

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Comans EF, Pijpers R, Boom RP, van Geldere D et al (2002) Determinants of diagnostic performance of [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for axillary staging in breast cancer. Ann Surg 236:619–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA, Fishman EK, Wahl RL (2006) Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33(3):254–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H, Omata J, Fukatsu K, Kondo N et al (2008) Utility of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT) in combination with ultrasonography for axillary staging in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer8:165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim J, Lee J, Chang E, Kim S, Suh K, Sul J et al (2009) Selective sentinel node plus additional non-sentinel node biopsy based on an FDG-PET/CT scan in early breast cancer patients: single institutional experience. World J Surg 33:943–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guller U, Nitzsche EU, Schirp U, Viehl CT, Torhorst J, Moch H et al (2002) Selective axillary surgery in breast cancer patients based on positron emission tomography with 18F-F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: not yet! Breast Cancer Res Treat 71(2):171–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang JH, Nam SJ, Lee TS, Lee HK, Jung SH, Kim BT (2001) Comparison of intraoperative frozen section analysis of sentinel node with preoperative positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 31:1–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fehr MK, Hornung R, Varga Z, Burger D, Hess T, Haller U et al (2004) Axillary staging using positron emission tomography in breast cancer patients qualifying for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast J 10:89–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Samson D, Flamm CR, Aronson N (2001) FDG positron emission tomography for evaluating breast cancer. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Chicago

  30. Adler LP, Blair HF, Makley JT, Williams RP, Joyce MJ, Leisure G et al (1991) Noninvasive grading of musculoskeletal tumor using PET. J Nucl Med 32:1508–1512

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Reisser C, Haberkorn V, Strauss LG (1993) The relevance of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and treatment of head and neck tumors. J Otolaryngol 22:231–238

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rodriguez M, Rehn S, Ahlstrom H, Sundstrom C, Glimelius B (1995) Predicting malignancy grade with PET in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med 35:1790–1796

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lindholm P, Minn H, Leskinen-Kallio S, Bergman J, Ruotsalainen U, Joensuu H (1996) Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer—a PET study. J Nucl Med 34:1–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhuang HM, Cortes-Blanco A, Pourdehnad M, Adam LE, Yamamoto AJ, Martinez-Lazaro R et al (2001) Do high glucose levels have differential effect on FDG uptake in inflammatory and malignant disorders? Nucl Med Commun 22:1123–1128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Crippa F, Gerali A, Alessi A, Agresti R, Bombardieri E (2004) FDG-PET for axillary lymph node staging in primary breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(Suppl 1):S97–S102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Greco M, Agresti R, Cascinelli N, Casalini P, Giovanazzi R, Maucione A et al (2000) Breast cancer patients treated without axillary surgery: clinical implication and biologic analysis. Ann Surg 232:1–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Yeungnam University research grants in 2008.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyung Ah Chun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kong, E.J., Chun, K.A., Cho, I.H. et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT with Contrast Enhancement for Evaluation of Axillary Lymph Node Involvement in T1 Breast Cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44, 170–176 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-010-0035-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-010-0035-y

Keywords

Navigation