Performance of dedicated breast PET in breast cancer screening: comparison with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) in breast cancer screening with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DM-DBT) and breast ultrasound (US). METHODS: Women who participated in opportunistic whole-body PET/computed tomography cancer screening programs with breast examinations using dbPET, DM-DBT, and US between 2016-2020, whose results were determined pathologically or by follow-up for at least 1 year, were included. DbPET, DM-DBT, and US assessments were classified into four diagnostic categories: A (no abnormality), B (mild abnormality), C (need for follow-up), and D (recommend further examination). Category D was defined as screening positive. Each modality's recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated per examination to evaluate their diagnostic performance for breast cancer. RESULTS: Out of 2156 screenings, 18 breast cancer cases were diagnosed during the follow-up period (10 invasive cancers and eight ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS]). The recall rates for dbPET, DM-DBT, and US were 17.8%, 19.2%, and 9.4%, respectively. The recall rate of dbPET was highest in the first year and subsequently decreased to 11.4%. dbPET, DM-DBT, and US had sensitivities of 72.2%, 88.9%, and 83.3%; specificities of 82.6%, 81.4%, and 91.2%; and PPVs of 3.4%, 3.9%, and 7.4%, respectively. The sensitivities of dbPET, DM-DBT, and US for invasive cancers were 90%, 100%, and 90%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the modalities. One case of dbPET-false-negative invasive cancer was identified in retrospect. DbPET had 50% sensitivity for DCIS, while that of both DM-DBT and US was 75%. Furthermore, the specificity of dbPET in the first year was the lowest among all periods, and modalities increased over the years to 88.7%. The specificity of dbPET was significantly higher than that of DM-DBT (p < 0.01) in the last 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: DbPET had a compatible sensitivity to DM-DBT and breast US for invasive breast cancer. The specificity of dbPET was improved and became higher than that of DM-DBT. DbPET may be a feasible screening modality.

Reproducibility assessment of uptake on dedicated breast PET for noise discrimination.

OBJECTIVES: Dedicated breast PET (dbPET) systems have improved the detection of small breast cancers but have increased false-positive diagnoses due to an increased chance of noise detection. This study examined whether reproducibility assessment using paired images helped to improve noise discrimination and diagnostic performance in dbPET. METHODS: This study included 21 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent [18F]FDG-dbPET and contrast-enhanced breast MRI. A 10-min dbPET data scan was acquired per breast, and two sets of reconstructed images were generated (named dbPET-1 and dbPET-2, respectively), each of which consisted of randomly allocated 5-min data from the 10-min data. Uptake spots higher than the background were indexed for the study with visual assessment. All indexed uptakes on dbPET-1 were evaluated using dbPET-2 for reproducibility. MRI findings based on the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 2013 were used as the gold standard. Uptake spots that corresponded to BI-RADS 1 on MRI were considered noise, while those with BI-RADS 4b-6 were considered malignancies. The diagnostic performance of dbPET for malignancy was evaluated using four different criteria: any uptake on dbPET-1 regarded as positive (criterion A), a subjective visual assessment of dbPET-1 (criterion B), reproducibility assessment between dbPET-1 and dbPET-2 (criterion C), and a combination of B and C (criterion D). RESULTS: A total of 213 indexed uptake spots were identified on dbPET-1, including 152, 15, 6, 6, and 34 lesions classified as BI-RADS MRI categories 1, 2, 4b, 4c, and 5, respectively. Overall, 31.9% of the index uptake values were reproducible. All malignant lesions were reproducible, whereas 93.4% of noise was not reproducible. The sensitivities for malignancy for criteria A, B, C, and D were 100%, 91.3%, 100%, and 91.3%, respectively, with positive predictive values (PPVs) of 21.4%, 68.9%, 67.6%, and 82.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that reproducibility assessment helped reduce false-positive findings caused by noise on dbPET without lowering the sensitivity for malignancy. While subjective visual assessment was also efficient in increasing PPV, it occasionally missed malignant uptake.

Diagnosing polymyalgia rheumatica on 18F-FDG PET/CT: typical uptake patterns.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is often challenging, since similar clinical features and laboratory findings can be observed in several inflammatory conditions. PMR involves affected sites in a specific manner, and 18F-FDG PET/CT has the advantage for assessing the disease activity of each site. The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns of 18F-FDG uptake that suggest the diagnosis of PMR. METHODS: We studied 60 patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT scans for workup of suspected PMR, arthritis, enthesitis, or myopathy. Final diagnoses were made by board-certified rheumatologists. The incidence of significant 18F-FDG uptake, higher than mediastinal blood pool, of the following sites were compared among PMR patients and patients with other diseases: wrists, elbows, shoulders, sternoclavicular joints, acromioclavicular joints, spinous processes, ischial tuberosities, and greater trochanters. For the spinous processes, the incidence of "Y"-shaped uptake along the interspinous bursae was also evaluated. RESULTS: A definitive diagnosis of PMR was given to 16 of 60 patients. The incidence of significant 18F-FDG uptake in the definitive PMR group was 6% for wrists and for elbows, 88% for glenohumeral and sternoclavicular joints, 25% for acromioclavicular joints, 81% for spinous processes, 69% for ischial tuberosities, and 81% for greater trochanters. Patients with PMR showed a significantly higher incidence of "Y"-shaped uptake along the interspinous bursae than the other patients (38 vs. 9%) (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG uptake distribution patterns and morphology can contribute to the diagnosis of PMR. Significant 18F-FDG uptake in the sternoclavicular joints is one of the characteristic findings in patients with PMR as well as the uptake in the shoulders, ischial tuberosities, and greater trochanters. "Y"-shaped spinous process uptake may be one of the specific findings for PMR.

A case of intrahepatic clear cell cholangiocarcinoma.

Intrahepatic clear cell cholangiocarcinoma is very rare - only 8 cases have been reported. A 56-year-old Japanese man with chronic hepatitis B infection was diagnosed with a 2.2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma on imaging, and hepatic segmentectomy was performed. Histopathologically, the tumor cells had copious clear cytoplasm and formed glandular structures or solid nests. These pathological findings suggested the tumor was a clear cell variant of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Particular stains and radiological images suggested that the cause of the clear cell change had been glycogen, not mucin nor lipid. On immunohistochemical staining, cytokeratin (CK) 7 and CK19 were positive, whereas CK20 was negative. Vimentin was detected on the cell membranes, and CD56 was focally positive. The patient was given adjuvant chemotherapy and is currently free from the tumor 7 mo postoperatively. Careful follow-up with adequate postoperative supplementary chemotherapy is necessary because the characteristics of this type of tumor are unknown.