Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 8 , Pages 940-944 , August 2007

Correlation Between the Intensity of Breast FDG Uptake and Menstrual Cycle

  • Chun-Yi Lin, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nuclear Medicine, Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, Changhua
    • ,
  • Hueisch-Jy Ding, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiological Technology, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung
    • ,
  • Chiu-Shoung Liu, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Community Medicine and Health Examination Center, China Medical University Hospital, No. 2, Yuh-Der Road, Taichung 404, Taichung
    • ,
  • Yen-Kung Chen, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, and School of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    • ,
  • Cheng-Chieh Lin, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Community Medicine and Health Examination Center, China Medical University Hospital, No. 2, Yuh-Der Road, Taichung 404, Taichung
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: C.H.K. and C.C.L.
    • ,
  • Chia-Hung Kao, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, China Medical University Hospital, No. 2, Yuh-Der Road, Taichung 404, Taichung, Taiwan
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: C.H.K. and C.C.L.

Received 31 January 2007 ,Accepted 21 March 2007.

References 

  1. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology. 1998;209:511
  2. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276:33–38
  3. Kavanagh AM, Cawson J, Byrnes GB, et al. Hormone replacement therapy, percent mammographic density, and sensitivity of mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:1060–1064
  4. Gorospe L, Raman S, Echeveste J, et al. Whole-body PET/CT: spectrum of physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients. [review] Nucl Med Commun. 2005;26:671–687
  5. Castellucci P, Nanni C, Farsad M, et al. Potential pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET in a large series of patients treated for malignant lymphoma: prevalence and scan interpretation. Nucl Med Commun. 2005;26:689–694
  6. Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, Nabi HA. 18F-FDG imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. [review] J Nucl Med Technol. 2005;33:145–155quiz 162–163
  7. Cook GJ, Wegner EA, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. [review] Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34:122–133
  8. Lamy PJ, Comte F, Eberle MC. Combined role of tumor markers and 18fluoro-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) in follow-up of cancer patients. [review] Bull Cancer. 2005;92:858–864[French]
  9. Park W, Park YJ, Huh SJ, et al. The usefulness of MRI and PET imaging for the detection of parametrial involvement and lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;35:260–264Epub 2005 May 10
  10. Orlando LA, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB. Meta-analysis: the detection of pancreatic malignancy with positron emission tomography. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:1063–1070
  11. Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, et al. PET scan imaging in oncology. [review] Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1525–1534
  12. Fujimoto R, Higashi T, Nakamoto Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of bone metastases detection in cancer patients: comparison between bone scintigraphy and whole-body FDG-PET. [review] Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20:399–408
  13. Pryma DA, Schoder H, Gonen M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET in Hurthle cell thyroid cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1260–1266
  14. Branstetter BF. Physiologic 18F-FDG uptake in the serratus anterior muscle: a potential false-positive on PET resolved with PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:W235
  15. Sowers MR, Jannausch ML, McConnell DS, et al. Menstrual cycle markers of ovarian aging and sex steroid hormone genotypes. Am J Med. 2006;119(Suppl 1):S31–S43
  16. La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, et al. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:3103
  17. Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, et al. Relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1238–1242
  18. Ursin G, Parisky YR, Pike MC, et al. Mammographic density changes during the menstrual cycle. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:141–142
  19. Baines CJ, Vidmar M, McKeown-Eyssen G, et al. Impact of menstrual phase on false-negative mammograms in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer. 1997;80:720–724
  20. White E, Velentgas P, Mandelson MT, et al. Variation in mammographic breast density by time in menstrual cycle among women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:906–910
  21. Spratt JS. Re: Variation in mammographic breast density by time in menstrual cycle among women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:90
  22. Smith S, Botha JL, Goosey R, et al. Audit of user satisfaction with the Leicestershire Breast Screening Service; women attending for assessment of abnormal mammograms. J Public Health Med. 1991;13:166–171

PII: S1076-6332(07)00148-1

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.03.010

Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 8 , Pages 940-944 , August 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution