The Preoperative Role of Breast-specific Gamma Imaging for the Breast Cancer Patients: In Comparison with Conventional Imaging Modality.
10.4048/jbc.2010.13.2.198
- Author:
Sung Mo HUR
1
;
Sung Hoon KIM
;
Se Kyung LEE
;
Wan Wook KIM
;
Jae Hyuck CHOI
;
Sangmin KIM
;
Su Jin LEE
;
Jun Young CHOI
;
Jun Ho CHOE
;
Jung Han KIM
;
Jee Soo KIM
;
Seok Jin NAM
;
Jung Hyun YANG
;
Jeong Eon LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. paojlus@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Axillary;
Breast neoplasms;
Gamma cameras;
Lymph nodes;
Technetium 99m Sestamibi
- MeSH:
Breast;
Breast Neoplasms;
Carcinoma in Situ;
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating;
Gamma Cameras;
Humans;
Injections, Intravenous;
Lymph Nodes;
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy;
Neoplasm Metastasis;
Prospective Studies;
Retrospective Studies;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi;
Veins
- From:Journal of Breast Cancer
2010;13(2):198-205
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: We wanted to assess the clinical efficacy of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) as compared with that of conventional imaging modalities (mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging) as a preoperative examination for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: From April to May 2009, a retrospective review was performed for the prospectively collected 143 patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer. All the patients received a conventional imaging examination and BSGI before definitive surgery. The patients underwent BSGI with intravenous injection of 30 mCi of (99m)Tc-sestamibi through the contralateral antecubital vein. After 10 minutes, the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique images were obtained. All the imaging findings were correlated with the final pathologic examination. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 49.7+/-9.4 years (range, 27-77). In 143 patients, 166 malignant lesions were identified by pathologic examination (invasive cancer: 96 (67.1%), ductal carcinoma in situ 14 (9.8%) and invasive cancer with carcinoma in situ 33 (23.1%). The conventional imaging modalities found 166 malignant lesions and BSGI found 156 malignant lesions. The rate of correspondence was 94.0% between the conventional imaging modalities and BSGI for malignant lesions. For BSGI, there were 4 false positive findings and 10 false negative findings. BSGI found no occult cancers that were missed by conventional imaging modality. For making the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 33.3%, 92.1%, and 69.9% for BSGI, and 55.6%, 77.5%, and 69.2%, for ultrasonography, respectively. CONCLUSION: BSGI may have the potentiality to make a correct diagnosis in breast cancer patients. However, in this study, it seems that BSGI is not superior to conventional imaging modalities. BSGI is not a standard method to evaluate breast cancer lesions before surgery.
