Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleOncology

Multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI of the Breast: Are There Differences in Imaging Biomarkers of Contralateral Healthy Tissue Between Patients With and Without Breast Cancer?

Doris Leithner, Thomas H. Helbich, Blanca Bernard-Davila, Maria Adele Marino, Daly Avendano, Danny F. Martinez, Maxine S. Jochelson, Panagiotis Kapetas, Pascal A.T. Baltzer, Alexander Haug, Marcus Hacker, Yasemin Tanyildizi, Elizabeth A. Morris and Katja Pinker
Journal of Nuclear Medicine January 2020, 61 (1) 20-25; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.230003
Doris Leithner
1Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
3Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas H. Helbich
3Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Blanca Bernard-Davila
4Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Adele Marino
1Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
5Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphologic and Functional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daly Avendano
1Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
6Department of Breast Imaging, Breast Cancer Center TecSalud, ITESM Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Danny F. Martinez
1Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maxine S. Jochelson
1Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Panagiotis Kapetas
3Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pascal A.T. Baltzer
3Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander Haug
7Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
8Christian Doppler Laboratory for Applied Metabolomics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcus Hacker
7Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yasemin Tanyildizi
9Department of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth A. Morris
1Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katja Pinker
1Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
3Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    A 50-y-old postmenopausal woman with fibroadenoma (arrows) in left breast. (A) Unenhanced fat-saturated T1-weighted MRI shows extreme amount of FGT (ACR d). (B) Moderate BPE is seen on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 90 s. (C) Mean ADC of breast parenchyma of contralateral breast on diffusion-weighted imaging with ADC mapping is 1.5 × 10−3 mm2/s. (D) On 18F-FDG PET/CT, lesion is not 18F-FDG–avid, and BPU of normal breast parenchyma is relatively high, with SUVmax of 3.2.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Mucinous carcinoma (arrows) in right breast in 42-y-old premenopausal woman. (A) Precontrast fat-saturated T1-weighted MR images show extreme amount of FGT (ACR d). (B) BPE in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 90 s is mild. (C) On diffusion-weighted imaging, ADCs of normal breast parenchyma are 2.17 × 10−3 mm2/s. (D) SUVmax (BPU) in 18F-FDG PET/CT is 2.58.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    ACR Classification for BPE and FGT by Both Readers

    Imaging characteristicr1r2
    BPE
     Minimal61 (43.3%)65 (46.1%)
     Mild56 (39.7%)52 (36.9%)
     Moderate19 (13.5%)17 (12.1%)
     Marked5 (3.5%)7 (5%)
    FGT
     Almost entirely fat35 (24.8%)33 (23.4%)
     Scattered fibroglandular61 (43.3%)64 (45.4%)
     Heterogeneously dense29 (20.6%)24 (17%)
     Extremely dense16 (11.3%)20 (14.2%)
    • Data are numbers of subjects, with percentages in parentheses.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Inter- and Intrareader Agreement of Parameters of Healthy Contralateral Breast

    AgreementConcordance correlation coefficient
    Intrareader BPU0.956 (0.942, 0.970)
    Interreader BPU0.949 (0.932, 0.965)
    Interreader BPE0.907 (0.878, 0.937)
    Interreader FGT0.933 (0.911, 0.954)
    Interreader mean ADC0.677 (0.587, 0.766)
    • 95% confidence intervals are given in parentheses.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 61 (1)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 61, Issue 1
January 1, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI of the Breast: Are There Differences in Imaging Biomarkers of Contralateral Healthy Tissue Between Patients With and Without Breast Cancer?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI of the Breast: Are There Differences in Imaging Biomarkers of Contralateral Healthy Tissue Between Patients With and Without Breast Cancer?
Doris Leithner, Thomas H. Helbich, Blanca Bernard-Davila, Maria Adele Marino, Daly Avendano, Danny F. Martinez, Maxine S. Jochelson, Panagiotis Kapetas, Pascal A.T. Baltzer, Alexander Haug, Marcus Hacker, Yasemin Tanyildizi, Elizabeth A. Morris, Katja Pinker
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2020, 61 (1) 20-25; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.230003

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI of the Breast: Are There Differences in Imaging Biomarkers of Contralateral Healthy Tissue Between Patients With and Without Breast Cancer?
Doris Leithner, Thomas H. Helbich, Blanca Bernard-Davila, Maria Adele Marino, Daly Avendano, Danny F. Martinez, Maxine S. Jochelson, Panagiotis Kapetas, Pascal A.T. Baltzer, Alexander Haug, Marcus Hacker, Yasemin Tanyildizi, Elizabeth A. Morris, Katja Pinker
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2020, 61 (1) 20-25; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.230003
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • KEY POINTS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • Role of F18-FDG PET/CT in non-cutaneous melanomas.
  • The role of Lymphoscintigraphy in Breast Cancer Reccurence
  • Utility of bone scans in patients with RCC
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • Addition of 131I-MIBG to PRRT (90Y-DOTATOC) for Personalized Treatment of Selected Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors
  • SUVs Are Adequate Measures of Lesional 18F-DCFPyL Uptake in Patients with Low Prostate Cancer Disease Burden
  • Hypermetabolism on Pediatric PET Scans of Brain Glucose Metabolism: What Does It Signify?
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • 18F-FDG PET/MRI
  • breast cancer
  • Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI
  • diffusion-weighted imaging
  • imaging biomarker
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire