Positron emission mammography (PEM): reviewing standardized semiquantitative method
- PDF / 377,324 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 14 Downloads / 146 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Positron emission mammography (PEM): reviewing standardized semiquantitative method Yayoi Yamamoto • Youichiro Tasaki • Yukiko Kuwada • Yukihiko Ozawa • Atsushi Katayama Yoshihide Kanemaki • Katsutoshi Enokido • Seigo Nakamura • Kouichi Kubouchi • Satoshi Morita • Mutsumi Noritake • Yasuo Nakajima • Tomio Inoue
•
Received: 11 March 2013 / Accepted: 17 June 2013 Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Purpose To validate semiquantitative analysis of positron emission mammography (PEM). Methods Fifty women with histologically confirmed breast lesions were retrospectively enrolled. Semiquantitative uptake values (4 methods), the maximum PEM uptake value (PUVmax), and the lesion-to-background (LTB) value (3 methods) were measured. LTB is a ratio of the lesion’s PUVmax to the mean background; LTB1, LTB2, and LTB3 (which were calculated on different background) were used to designate the three values measured. Interobserver reliability between two readers for PUVmax and the LTBs was tested using the interobserver correlation coefficient (ICC). The likelihood ratio test was used to evaluate the relationship between ICCs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for all methods. Diagnostic accuracy in differentiating benign
tissue from malignant tissue was compared between PUVmax and LTB1. Results The ICC rate was 0.971 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.943–0.986] for PUVmax, 0.873 (95 % CI 0.758–0.935) for LTB1, 0.965 (95 % CI 0.925–0.983) for LTB2, and 0.895 (95 % CI 0.799–0.946) for LTB3. However, there were some technical difficulties in the practical use of LTB2 and LTB3. The likelihood ratio test between PUVmax and LTB1 was statistically significant (p \ 0.001). ROC curves of the 4 methods had similar characteristics. The median PUVmax was 1.39 for benign lesions and 3.70 for malignant lesions. LTB1 was 1.92 for benign lesions and 4.78 for malignant lesions. Significant differences (p \ 0.001) in both PUVmax and LTB1 were observed between groups. Conclusion Due to its simplicity and reproducibility, PUVmax is superior to LTB as an indicator for PEM in semiquantitative analysis.
Y. Yamamoto (&) Y. Tasaki Y. Kuwada Y. Ozawa A. Katayama Yuai Clinic, 1-6-2 Kitashinyokohama, Kohoku-Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 223-0059, Japan e-mail: [email protected]
S. Morita Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-0004, Japan
Y. Kanemaki Department of Radiology, Breast and Imaging Center, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 6-7-2 Manpukuji, Asao-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 215-8520, Japan K. Enokido S. Nakamura Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Showa University School of Medicine, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 142-0064, Japan K. Kubouchi Yokohama Breast and GI Hospital, 1-5-18 Tunashimanishi, Kohoku-Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 223-0053, Japan
M. Noritake Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yokohama City Unive
Data Loading...
