Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Standardized Uptake Values of Normal Breast Tissue with 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]Fluoro-d-glucose Positron Emission Tomography: Variations with Age, Breast Density, and Menopausal Status

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study was conducted to assess the effect of breast density, age, and menopausal status on the 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) uptake in normal breast tissue by quantitative standardized uptake values (SUV).

Methods

A total of 96 patients (premenopausal 54; postmenopausal 42) with histologically proven unilateral breast cancer who underwent FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) scans for staging were included in this study. The median age was 52±11 years (range 32–79 years). Fifty-nine patients had grade III or IV mammographic density (dense breast), whereas 37 patients had grade I or II breast density (nondense) according to the ACR Lexicon criteria. In the present study, we analyzed maximum and average SUVs for contralateral normal breast.

Results

Maximum and average SUVs for normal dense breasts were 1.02±0.30 and 0.84±0.27, respectively. Similar values for the nondense breasts were 0.66±0.24 and 0.53±0.23, respectively. Both maximum and average SUVs of dense breasts were significantly higher than those of nondense breasts (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in SUVs of nipple in patients with dense and nondense breasts. There was no significant effect of age and menopausal status on SUVs of normal breast. However, there were trends of negative relationship, i.e., decreasing SUVs with increasing age.

Conclusion

There was a significant difference in SUVs between the dense and nondense normal breast. However, the maximum SUVs in the dense breasts were well below the threshold of 2.5, a widely used cutoff value for malignancy. Menopausal status and age do not significantly affect the uptake of FDG.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, et al. (2005) Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER Statistics Database: Incidence—SEE (1973–2000), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch

  3. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, et al. (1998) Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209:511–518

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baines CJ, Miller AB, Wall C, McFarlane DV, Simor IS, Jong R, et al. (1986) Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a preliminary report from five centers. Radiology 160:295–298

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S (1993) Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1644–1656

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, et al. (1995) Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 75:2507–2517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frisell J, Klund G, Hellstrom L (1991) Randomized study of mammography screening: preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18:49–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Salvatore M, Del Vecchio S (1998) Dynamic imaging: scintimammography. Eur J Radiol 27 Suppl 2:S259–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lehman CD, White E, Peacock S, Drucker MJ, Urban N (1999) Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings. AJR 173:1651–1655

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nieweg OE, Kim EE, Wong WH (1993) Positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-deoxyglucose in the detection and staging of breast cancer. Cancer 71:3920–3925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoh CK, Schiepers C (1999) 18-FDG imaging in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 29:49–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 187:743–750

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Palmedo H, Bender H, Grunwald F, Mallmann P, Zamora P, Krebs D, et al. (1997) Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography in the detection of breast tumours. Eur J Nucl Med 24:1138–1145

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Avril N, Dose J, Janicke F, Bense S, Ziegler S, Laubenbacher C, et al. (1996) Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol 14:1848–1857

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alavi A, Kung JW, Zhuang H (2004) Implications of PET based molecular imaging on the current and future practice of medicine. Semin Nucl Med 34:56–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, Quon A, Villalpando J, Dahlbom M, et al. (2003) Relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med 44:1238–1242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar R, Schnall MD, Alavi A (2004) 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med 45:1423–1424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ (2005) Digital mammography. Radiology 234:353–362

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kumar R, Alavi A (2004) Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in the management of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 42:1113–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ciatto S, Zappa MA (1993) A prospective study of the value of mammographic patterns as indicators of breast cancer risk in a screening experience. Eur J Radiol 17:122–125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Flook D, Gilhome RW, Harman J, Gravelle IH, Webster DJ (1987) Changes in Wolfe mammographic patterns with aging. Br J Radiol 60:455–456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wolfe JN (1976) Breast parenchymal patterns and their changes with age. Radiology 121:545–552

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276:33–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL (1993) Standardised uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology 189:847–850

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Public Health Services Research Grant M01-RR00040 from NIH. Rakesh Kumar, M.D., was financially supported by UICC (International Union Against Cancer) Geneva, Switzerland under ACSBI fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Rakesh Kumar MD, Anil Chauhan MD & Prem Chandra MSc

  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Rakesh Kumar MD, Hongming Zhuang MD, PhD, Mitchell Schnall MD & Abass Alavi MD

Authors
  1. Rakesh Kumar MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anil Chauhan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongming Zhuang MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Prem Chandra MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mitchell Schnall MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abass Alavi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rakesh Kumar MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, R., Chauhan, A., Zhuang, H. et al. Standardized Uptake Values of Normal Breast Tissue with 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]Fluoro-d-glucose Positron Emission Tomography: Variations with Age, Breast Density, and Menopausal Status. Mol Imaging Biol 8, 355–362 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-006-0060-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-006-0060-5

Key words

Search

Navigation