Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality in breast cancer patients with dense breast: a comparative study with MRI

  • Original article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the adjunctive benefits of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer patients with dense breasts.

Methods

This study included a total of 66 patients (44.1 ± 8.2 years) with dense breasts (breast density >50%) and already biopsy-confirmed breast cancer. All of the patients underwent BSGI and MRI as part of an adjunct modality before the initial therapy. Of 66 patients, the 97 undetermined breast lesions were newly detected and correlated with the biopsy results.

Results

Twenty-six of the 97 breast lesions proved to be malignant tumors (invasive ductal cancer, n = 16; ductal carcinoma in situ, n = 6; mixed or other malignancies, n = 4); the remaining 71 lesions were diagnosed as benign tumors. The sensitivity and specificity of BSGI were 88.8% (confidence interval (CI), 69.8–97.6%) and 90.1% (CI, 80.7–95.9%), respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 92.3% (CI, 74.9–99.1%) and 39.4% (CI, 28.0–51.7%), respectively (p < 0.0001). MRI detected 43 false-positive breast lesions, 37 (86.0%) of which were correctly diagnosed as benign lesions using BSGI. In 12 malignant lesions <1 cm, the sensitivities of BSGI and MR imaging were 83.3% (CI, 51.6–97.9%) and 91.7% (CI, 61.5–99.8%), respectively.

Conclusion

BSGI showed an equivocal sensitivity and a high specificity compared to MRI in the diagnosis of breast lesions. In addition, BSGI had a good sensitivity in discriminating breast cancers ≤1 cm. The results of this study suggest that BSGI could play a crucial role as an adjunctive imaging modality which can be used to evaluate breast cancer patients with dense breasts.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrett SV. Breast cancer. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2010;40:335–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. 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. 2002;225:165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, et al. 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. 1998;209:511–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Anastassiades O, Iakovou E, Stavridou N, Gogas J, Karameris A. Multicentricity in breast cancer. A study of 366 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;99:238–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vaidya JS, Vyas JJ, Chinoy RF, Merchant N, Sharma OP, Mittra I. Multicentricity of breast cancer: whole-organ analysis and clinical implications. Br J Cancer. 1996;74:820–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Drew PJ, Turnbull LW, Chatterjee S, Read J, Carleton PJ, Fox JN, et al. Prospective comparison of standard triple assessment and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast for the evaluation of symptomatic breast lesions. Ann Surg. 1999;230:680–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Iagaru A, Masamed R, Keesara S, Conti PS. Breast MRI and 18F FDG PET/CT in the management of breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:33–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology. 1999;211:101–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1295–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Khalkhali I, Mena I, Jouanne E, Diggles L, Venegas R, Block J, et al. Prone scintimammography in patients with suspicion of carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;178:491–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Taillefer R. Clinical applications of 99 mTc-sestamibi scintimammography. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:100–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Babuccu O, Peksoy I, Kargi E, Hoşnuter M, Ozdemir H, Gündoğdu S, et al. The value of scintimammography in reduction mammaplasties: a preliminary study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003;27:296–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Khalkhali I, Baum JK, Villanueva-Meyer J, Edell SL, Hanelin LG, Lugo CE, et al. (99 m)Tc sestamibi breast imaging for the examination of patients with dense and fatty breasts: multicenter study. Radiology. 2002;222:149–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lumachi F, Ferretti G, Povolato M, Marzola MC, Zucchetta P, Geatti O, et al. Accuracy of technetium-99 m sestamibi scintimammography and X-ray mammography in premenopausal women with suspected breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:1776–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Arslan N, Oztürk E, Ilgan S, Urhan M, Karaçalioglu O, Pekcan M, et al. 99Tcm-MIBI scintimammography in the evaluation of breast lesions and axillary involvement: a comparison with mammography and histopathological diagnosis. Nucl Med Commun. 1999;20:317–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Palmedo H, Grünwald F, Bender H, Schomburg A, Mallmann P, Krebs D, et al. Scintimammography with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile: comparison with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23:940–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;247:651–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Kieper DA, Majewski S, Goodman S, Civelek C. High-resolution scintimammography: a pilot study. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:909–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brem RF, Petrovitch I, Rapelyea JA, Young H, Teal C, Kelly T. Breast-specific gamma imaging with 99mTc-Sestamibi and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer—a comparative study. Breast J. 2007;13:465–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999;213:881–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bilimoria KY, Cambic A, Hansen NM, Bethke KP. Evaluating the impact of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of newly diagnosed breast cancers. Arch Surg. 2007;142:441–5. (discussion 445–7).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004;292:2735–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Brem RF, Fishman M, Rapelyea JA. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:945–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248(1):254–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Ewha Womans University Research Grant of 2010-1683-1-1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, 911–1 Mok-Dong, Yangchun-Ku, Seoul, 158–710, Korea

    Bom Sahn Kim

  2. Brain and Neuroscience Major, Seoul National University, 28 Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea

    Bom Sahn Kim

Authors
  1. Bom Sahn Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bom Sahn Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, B.S. Usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality in breast cancer patients with dense breast: a comparative study with MRI. Ann Nucl Med 26, 131–137 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0544-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0544-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation