Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic value of full-dose FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate FDG PET/CT and CT for the detection of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer (BC) patients and (2) to evaluate FDG PET/CT as a pre-test for the triage to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) versus axillary lymph node dissection (ALND).

Methods

The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV), and accuracy of FDG PET/CT and CT for axillary lymph node metastases were determined in 61 patients (gold standard: histopathology). According to the equation “NPV = specificity ∙ (1-prevalence) / [specificity ∙ (1-prevalence) + (1-sensitivity) ∙ prevalence]” FDG PET/CT was evaluated as a triage tool for SLNB versus ALND.

Results

The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of FDG PET/CT was 58, 92, 82, 77 and 79% and of CT 46, 89, 72, 71 and 72%, respectively. Patients with an up to ~60% risk for axillary lymph node metastases appear to be candidates for SLNB provided that the axilla is unremarkable on FDG PET/CT.

Conclusion

FDG PET/CT cannot replace invasive approaches for axillary staging but may extend the indication for SLNB.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:106–30. doi:10.3322/canjclin.56.2.106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller WR, Ellis IO, Sainsbury JR, Dixon JM. ABC of breast diseases. Prognostic factors. BMJ 1994;309:1573–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Amersi F, Hansen NM. The benefits and limitations of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2006;7:141–51. doi:10.1007/s11864-006-0049-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2005;35:84–99. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2004.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ranaboldo CJ, Mitchel A, Royle GT, Theaker GM, Taylor I. Axillary nodal status in women with screen-detected breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1993;19:130–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Walls J, Boggis CR, Wilson M, Asbury DL, Roberts JV, Bundred NJ, et al. Treatment of the axilla in patients with screen-detected breast cancer. Br J Surg 1993;80:436–8. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800800409.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Peintinger F, Reitsamer R, Stranzl H, Ralph G. Comparison of quality of life and arm complaints after axillary lymph node dissection vs sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2003;89:648–52. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601150.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schulze T, Mucke J, Markwardt J, Schlag PM, Bembenek A. Long-term morbidity of patients with early breast cancer after sentinel lymph node biopsy compared to axillary lymph node dissection. J Surg Oncol 2006;93:109–19. doi:10.1002/jso.20406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kühn T, Bembenek A, Büchels H, Decker T, Dunst J, Müllerleile U, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in breast carcinoma. Interdisciplinary agreement consensus of the German Society for Serology for quality controlled application in routine clinical testing (in German). Pathologe 2004;25:238–43. doi:10.1007/s00292-003-0661-6. discussion 244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bedrosian I, Reynolds C, Mick R, Callans LS, Grant CS, Donohue JH, et al. Accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with large primary breast tumors. Cancer 2000;88:2540–5. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20000601) 88:11<2540::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-A.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuehn T, Bembenek A, Decker T, Munz DL, Sautter-Bihl ML, Untch M, et al. A concept for the clinical implementation of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast carcinoma with special regard to quality assurance. Cancer 2005;103:451–61. doi:10.1002/cncr.20786.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chung MH, Ye W, Giuliano AE. Role for sentinel lymph node dissection in the management of large (> or = 5 cm) invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2001;8:688–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwartz GF. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in carcinoma of the breast: current update. Breast J 2004;10:85–8. doi:10.1111/j.1075-122X.2004.21439.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson AB 3rd, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7703–20. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Specht MC, Fey JV, Borgen PI, Cody HS 3rd. Is the clinically positive axilla in breast cancer really a contraindication to sentinel lymph node biopsy? J Am Coll Surg 2005;200:10–4. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.09.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar R, Alavi A. PET imaging in gynecologic malignancies. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:1155–67. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2004.08.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kumar R, Alavi A. Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in the management of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:1113–22. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2004.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 2007;242:360–85. doi:10.1148/radiol.2422051113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hodgson NC, Gulenchyn KY. Is there a role for positron emission tomography in breast cancer staging? J Clin Oncol 2008;26:712–20. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.8412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Veronesi U, De Cicco C, Galimberti VE, Fernandez JR, Rotmensz N, Viale G, et al. A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases. Ann Oncol 2007;18:473–8. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl425.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wahl RL, Siegel BA, Coleman RE, Gatsonis CG, PET Study Group. Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the staging breast cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:277–85. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.04.148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weir L, Worsley D, Bernstein V. The value of FDG positron emission tomography in the management of patients with breast cancer. Breast J 2005;11:204–9. doi:10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.21625.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Umutlu L, Koeninger A, Freudenberg LS, Hauth EA, et al. Breast cancer staging in a single session: whole-body PET/CT mammography. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1215–22. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.052050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kreienberg R, Kopp I, Lorenz W, Budach W, Dunst J, Lebeau A, et al. Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms der Frau. Informationszentrum für Standards in der Onkologie; 2004:1–172.

  25. Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Hauth E, et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology 2004;230:879–85. doi:10.1148/radiol.2303021287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LF, Akhurst T, Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:588–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. March DE, Wechsler RJ, Kurtz AB, Rosenberg AL, Needleman L. CT-pathologic correlation of axillary lymph nodes in breast carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991;15:440–4. doi:10.1097/00004728-199105000-00017.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Alvarez S, Añorbe E, Alcorta P, López F, Alonso I, Cortés J. Role of sonography in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: a systematic review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:1342–8. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0936.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H, Shigekawa T, Fukatsu K, Kondo N, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of uptake level using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008;38:250–8. doi:10.1093/jjco/hyn019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Avril N, Rosé CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3495–502.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lewellen TK. Recent developments in PET detector technology. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:R287–317. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/53/17/R01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Teräs M, Tolvanen T, Johansson JJ, Williams JJ, Knuuti J. Performance of the new generation of whole-body PET/CT scanners: Discovery STE and Discovery VCT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1683–92. doi:10.1007/s00259-007-0493-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Krag DN. The sentinel node for staging breast cancer: current review. Breast Cancer 1999;6:233–6. doi:10.1007/BF02967176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Veronesi U, Galimberti V, Mariani L, Gatti G, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: early results in 953 patients with negative sentinel node biopsy and no axillary dissection. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:231–7. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2004.05.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bass SS, Lyman GH, McCann CR, Ku NN, Berman C, Durand K, et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast J 1999;5:288–95. doi:10.1046/j.1524-4741.1999.00001.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Borgstein PJ, Pijpers R, Comans EF, van Diest PJ, Boom RP, Meijer S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: guidelines and pitfalls of lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe detection. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186:275–83. doi:10.1016/S1072-7515(98)00011-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Roy P, Bobin JY, Estève J. Methodological questions in sentinel lymph node analysis in breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2000;11:1381–5. doi:10.1023/A:1026743914286.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fraile M, Rull M, Julián FJ, Fusté F, Barnadas A, Llatjós M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy as a practical alternative to axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients: an approach to its validity. Ann Oncol 2000;11:701–5. doi:10.1023/A:1008377910967.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Chua B, Ung O, Taylor R, Boyages J. Frequency and predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in invasive breast cancer. ANZ J Surg 2001;71:723–8. doi:10.1046/j.1445-1433.2001.02266.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Abner AL, Collins L, Peiro G, Recht A, Come S, Shulman LN, et al. Correlation of tumor size and axillary lymph node involvement with prognosis in patients with T1 breast carcinoma. Cancer 1998;83:2502–8. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19981215) 83:12<2502::AID-CNCR14>3.0.CO;2-I.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989;63:181–7. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<181::AID-CNCR2820630129>3.0.CO;2-H.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Till A. Heusner, Steffen Hahn, Michael Forsting & Gerald Antoch

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Sherko Kuemmel, Angela Koeninger & Klaus R. Kimmig

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Monia E. Hamami, Andreas Bockisch & Alexander Stahl

  4. Department of Pathology and Neuropathology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Friedrich Otterbach

Authors
  1. Till A. Heusner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sherko Kuemmel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steffen Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela Koeninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Friedrich Otterbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Monia E. Hamami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Klaus R. Kimmig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael Forsting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Andreas Bockisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Gerald Antoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alexander Stahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Till A. Heusner.

Additional information

An Editorial Commentary on this paper is available at doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1159-0.

Appendix

Appendix

From a statistical point of view the value of SLNB (as a replacement for ALND) is mainly based on its negative predictive value (NPV) being defined as

$$ NPV = \frac{{specificity \cdot \left( {1 - prevalence} \right)}}{{specificity \cdot \left( {1 - prevalence} \right) + \left( {1 - sensitivity} \right) \cdot prevalence}} $$
(1)

A high NPV obviates the need for ALND in the case of a negative sentinel lymph node (SLN). In institutions where SLNB is applied, an NPV as high as 95% is regularly achieved and considered as sufficiently high [33–36]. Taking into account a virtually 100% specificity of SLNB (in theory there are no false-positive results) and a 91–94% sensitivity [37, 38], the NPV only depends on the prevalence of axillary node disease, according to Eq. 1. Assuming 95% as the lowest value for a tolerable NPV, SLNB should not be applied if the prevalence (= risk) of axillary lymph node metastases exceeds 37% (calculated for a sensitivity of 91%) to 47% (calculated for a sensitivity of 94%, Eq. 1). Otherwise the NPV of SLNB will fall below 95% and may not justify omission of ALND in the case of a negative SLN. The prevalence of axillary lymph node disease in patients with breast cancer shows a strong correlation with tumour size. It is given as ~30% at a size of 1–2 cm, ~45% at 2–3 cm, ~50% at 3–4 cm, ~60% at 4–5 cm and ~70% at > 5 cm. [39–41]. In this manuscript patients with an a priori risk of greater than 40% for axillary lymph node metastases are designated “high-risk” with the remainder being designated “low-risk”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heusner, T.A., Kuemmel, S., Hahn, S. et al. Diagnostic value of full-dose FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36, 1543–1550 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1145-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1145-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation