Four Patterns of Abnormal Ring-Like Uptakes on Dedicated Breast PET

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinsuke Sasada ◽  
Azusa Kai ◽  
Yuri Kimura ◽  
Norio Masumoto ◽  
Takayuki Kadoya
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoko Satoh ◽  
Utaroh Motosugi ◽  
Masamichi Imai ◽  
Yoshie Omiya ◽  
Hiroshi Onishi

Abstract Background Using phantoms and clinical studies in prone hanging breast imaging, we assessed the image quality of a commercially available dedicated breast PET (dbPET) at the detector’s edge, where mammary glands near the chest wall are located. These are compared to supine PET/CT breast images of the same clinical subjects. Methods A breast phantom with four spheres (16-, 10-, 7.5-, and 5-mm diameter) was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background activity concentration ratio, 8:1). The spheres occupied five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and were scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) for all spheres, and coefficient of variation of the background (CVB) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical images obtained with standard supine PET/CT and prone dbPET were retrospectively analysed. Tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was compared between dbPET and PET/CT. Results Closer to the detector’s edge, the CNR and CRC of all spheres decreased while the CVB increased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. Regarding clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.38 ± 6.41 vs 6.73 ± 3.5, p = 0.0006) and non-peripheral (12.44 ± 5.94 vs 7.71 ± 7.1, p = 0.0183) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups. Conclusion The phantom study revealed poorer image quality at < 2-cm distance from the detector’s edge than at other more central parts. In clinical studies, however, the visibility of breast lesions with dbPET was the same regardless of the lesion position, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall if they are at least 2 cm from the edge of the FOV, even in young women with small breasts.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 406-414
Author(s):  
Yoko Satoh ◽  
Masami Kawamoto ◽  
Kazunori Kubota ◽  
Koji Murakami ◽  
Makoto Hosono ◽  
...  

AbstractBreast positron emission tomography (PET) has had insurance coverage when performed with conventional whole-body PET in Japan since 2013. Together with whole-body PET, accurate examination of breast cancer and diagnosis of metastatic disease are possible, and are expected to contribute significantly to its treatment planning. To facilitate a safer, smoother, and more appropriate examination, the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine published the first edition of practice guidelines for high-resolution breast PET in 2013. Subsequently, new types of breast PET have been developed and their clinical usefulness clarified. Therefore, the guidelines for breast PET were revised in 2019. This article updates readers as to what is new in the second edition. This edition supports two different types of breast PET depending on the placement of the detector: the opposite-type (positron emission mammography; PEM) and the ring-shaped type (dedicated breast PET; dbPET), providing an overview of these scanners and appropriate imaging methods, their clinical applications, and future prospects. The name “dedicated breast PET” from the first edition is widely used to refer to ring-shaped type breast PET. In this edition, “breast PET” has been defined as a term that refers to both opposite- and ring-shaped devices. Up-to-date breast PET practice guidelines would help provide useful information for evidence-based breast imaging.


Author(s):  
Abhijit J. Chaudhari ◽  
Yongfeng Yang ◽  
Richard Farrell ◽  
Purushottam A. Dokhale ◽  
Kanai S. Shah ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 388-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryusuke Nakamoto ◽  
Yuji Nakamoto ◽  
Takayoshi Ishimori ◽  
Kayo Nishimatsu ◽  
Kanae K. Miyake ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 50 (9) ◽  
pp. 1401-1408 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. L. Bowen ◽  
Y. Wu ◽  
A. J. Chaudhari ◽  
L. Fu ◽  
N. J. Packard ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 2261-2272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trinitat García Hernández ◽  
Aurora Vicedo González ◽  
Jose Ferrer Rebolleda ◽  
Raúl Sánchez Jurado ◽  
Joan Roselló Ferrando ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 446-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bas B. Koolen ◽  
Sergi Vidal-Sicart ◽  
José M. Benlloch Baviera ◽  
Renato A. Valdés Olmos

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 790-799
Author(s):  
Azadeh Emami ◽  
Hossein Ghadiri ◽  
Pardis Ghafarian ◽  
Parham Geramifar ◽  
Mohammad Reza Ay

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document