Estudio comparativo de la sensibilidad del MAMMI-PET en el diagnóstico de cáncer de mama con respecto a otras pruebas de imagen / Comparative study of the sensitivity of MAMMI-PET in the diagnosis of breast cancer with regard to other imaging tests

Introducción: el empleo de dispositivos de tomografía por emisión de positrones mamodedicados (dbPET) mejora la resolución espacial respecto a la PET corporal total. La mamografía mediante imagen molecular PET (MAMMI-PET) es una nueva técnica, pero los estudios clínicos realizados son escasos. El objetivo del trabajo es determinar la sensibilidad, especificidad, los valores predictivos positivos y negativos de la MAMMI-PET, así como comparar el dispositivo con las pruebas de imagen tradicionales. Material y métodos: estudio observacional prospectivo y analítico sobre una muestra de pacientes con cáncer de mama confirmado histológicamente, atendidas en el Hospital General de Valencia (enero 2017-noviembre 2018). Se realizó un estudio preoperatorio con ecografía, mamografía, resonancia magnética nuclear y MAMMI-PET. Se consideró a la anatomía patológica como el patrón oro del número y tipo de lesiones existentes en cada mama. Se comprobó si el diagnóstico del MAMMI-PET para cada lesión coincidió con el resultado de la anatomía patológica. Se comparó la sensibilidad de cada prueba con la del MAMMI-PET empleando la prueba de Chi cuadrado con nivel de significación de 0,05. Resultados: se evaluaron los datos de 32 pacientes y 44 lesiones (36 malignas y 8 benignas). Dos pacientes fueron excluidas del estudio. Se obtuvo una sensibilidad del 75% para el MAMMI-PET. La mejor sensibilidad se obtuvo para la resonancia magnética nuclear con 85,3% mientras que para la ecografía y la mamografía fue de 77,8 y 69,4%, respectivamente. No se evidenciaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el estudio comparativo entre el MAMMI-PET y el resto de las pruebas de imagen. Conclusiones: la sensibilidad del MAMMI-PET (75%) para el diagnóstico de cáncer de mama fue similar a las otras pruebas de imagen. (AU)

Introduction: The use of mammo dedicated breast PET (dbPET) scanners improves spacial resolution compared to Whole Body Pet images (WBPET). Mammography with Molecular Imaging PET (MAMMI-PET) is a new device with hardly any clinical studies. The aim of the study is to estimate the sensitivity of MAMMI-PET and compare it with classic imaging devices. Material and methods: A prospective and analytical observational study was carried out in a sample of patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer who were treated at our hospital between January 2017 and November 2018. Preoperative study of patients was performed with ultrasound, mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MAMMI-PET. Findings (number and benignant/malignant lesions) of the anatomopathological (AP) study were used as the gold standard. Results between MAMMI-PET and AP were compared. The sensitivity of each test was compared with that of the MAMMI-PET using the Chi square test with a significance level of 0.05. Results: Data from 32 patients and 44 lesions (36 malignant and 8 benign) were evaluated. Two patients were excluded. The MAMMI-PET sensitivity was 75%. The best sensitivity was obtained for MRI with 85.3%, while for ultrasound and mammography it was 77.8% and 69.4% respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the sensitivity of MAMMIPET and the rest of the imaging tests. Conclusions: The sensitivity obtained for the MAMMI-PET scanner (75%) was similar to the other imaging tests. (AU)

Malignant eccrine breast spiradenoma. A case report and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Eccrine spiradenomas are rare adnexal tumours of the skin that originate in the sweat glands. There are only three cases, including ours, diagnosed as malignant transformation in the breast. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present a case of an asymptomatic 48 year old woman in whom the lesion was detected on the basis of breast cancer prevention programme. The metastatic study detection and the sentinel lymph node biopsy were negative so wide excision of the mass was performed with no further treatment. After 32 months of follow-up, there is no evidence of recurrent or metastatic disease in our patient. DISCUSSION: The lesions usually show a typical history of a long-standing unchanged cutaneous solitary nodule that becomes enlarged. The imaging findings of breast eccrine spiradenomas have not been clearly demonstrated. Diagnosis is based in histopathological findings of malignant focus. A large list of uncommon dermatological skin malignancies and breast benign lesions can mimic malignant eccrine spiradenomas (MES); therefore, determination of inmunophenotype allows narrowing differential diagnosis. Distant metastases portend an ominous prognosis. The mainstay of treatment is surgical removal with wide excision margins. Radiation and hyperthermic chemotherapy can also be administered to prevent focal recurrence. Due to the high risk of developing metastases, close follow up of these patients for early detection of recurrence should be carried out. CONCLUSION: Eccrine spiradenomas are rare adnexal tumours of the skin. Intraparenquimatous breast location is especially infrequent. Diagnosis is based on histopathological examination. MES metastasizes (40%), so a close follow up is recommended.