OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging ( @entity7994 ) of the breast for lesion detection and local @entity5 staging of @entity1 with primary @entity0 in comparison to PET/computed tomography (CT) and @entity7994 . MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the local institutional review board. Forty-nine @entity1 with biopsy-proven @entity0 were prospectively enrolled in our study. All @entity1 underwent a PET/CT, and subsequently, a contrast-enhanced @entity7994 of the breast after written informed consent was obtained before each examination. Two radiologists independently evaluated the corresponding data sets (PET/CT, @entity7994 , and @entity7994 ) and were instructed to identify @entity5 lesions as well as multifocal/multicentric and bilateral disease. Furthermore, the occurrence of lymph node @entity3 was assessed, and the T-stage for each @entity1 was determined. Histopathological verification of the local @entity5 extent and the axillary lymph node status was available for 30 of 49 and 48 of 49 @entity1 , respectively. For the remaining @entity1 , a consensus characterization was performed for the determination of the T-stage and nodal status, taking into account the results of clinical staging, PET/CT, and @entity7994 examinations. Statistical analysis was performed to test for differences in diagnostic performance between the different imaging procedures. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Positron emission tomography/ @entity7994 and @entity7994 correctly identified 47 (96%) of the 49 @entity1 with primary @entity0 , whereas PET/CT enabled detection of 46 (94%) of 49 @entity0 @entity1 and missed a @entity189 in the contralateral breast in 1 @entity1 . In a lesion-by-lesion analysis, no significant differences could be obtained between the 3 imaging procedures for the identification of primary @entity0 (P > 0.05). Positron emission tomography/ @entity7994 and @entity7994 allowed for a correct identification of multifocal/multicentric disease in 3 additional @entity1 if compared with PET/CT. For the definition of the correct T-stage, @entity7994 and @entity7994 showed identical results and were correct in significantly more cases than PET/CT ( @entity7994 and @entity7994 , 82%; PET/CT, 68%; P < 0.05). Furthermore, the calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of nodal positive @entity1 (n = 18) were 78%, 94%, 88%, 88%, and 88% for PET/CT; 67%, 87%, 75%, 82%, and 80% for @entity7994 ; and 78%, 90%, 82%, 88%, and 86% for @entity7994 , respectively. Differences between the imaging modalities were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Integrated @entity7994 does not provide diagnostic advantages for local @entity5 staging of @entity0 @entity1 in comparison to @entity7994 alone. Positron emission tomography/ @entity7994 and @entity7994 enable an improved determination of the local @entity5 extent in comparison to PET/CT, whereas all 3 imaging modalities offer a comparable diagnostic performance for the identification of @entity66 .

Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Tumor Staging in XXXX With Primary @entity0 : A Comparison With Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity0 :: ('MESH:D001943', 'Disease') :: ['breast cancer', 'breast cancer lesions', 'invasive breast cancer'] @entity7994 :: ('78996', 'Gene') :: ['MRI', 'PET/MRI'] @entity66 :: ('MESH:D004194', 'Disease') :: ['axillary disease'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor', 'primary tumors'] @entity189 :: ('MESH:D002277', 'Disease') :: ['synchronous carcinoma'] @entity3 :: ('MESH:D009362', 'Disease') :: ['metastases']
@entity1 :: (9606,Species) :: ['Patients']
