Skip to main content
Download PDF

Letter to the Editor: A response to Hruska’s case study on molecular breast imaging and the need for true tissue quantification

Breast Cancer Research volume 21, Article number: 15 (2019) Cite this article

We applaud the efforts by Hruska et al. [1] to quantify differences in tissue using molecular breast imaging (MBI) and background parenchymal uptake (BPU); we have discussed the use of such previously [2]. The approach while commendable did not provide diagnostically useful information to differentiate tissue types. This approach, like the utilization of standardized uptake value (SUV), compares differences in background with tissue [3]. As we have already discussed [2, 4, 5] in the literature, this approach is an incorrect model, due to (1) the critical lack of standardization and calibration of nuclear cameras including both SPECT/Planar and PET; (2) the utilization of ratios which are not absolute values and therefore cannot be used to differentiate tissue based upon those issues, issues which are critical to the understanding of tissue differences; and (3) the inability to truly “measure” transitional changes in tissue, which would allow for the determination of actual treatment response on a per patient basis, saving time, money, and lives.

References

  1. Hruska CB, Geske JR, Swanson TN, et al. Quantitative background parenchymal uptake on molecular breast imaging and breast cancer risk: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-018-0973-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fleming RM, Dooley WC. Breast enhanced scintigraphy testing (B.E.S.T.) distinguishes between normal, inflammatory breast changes and breast cancer. A prospective analysis and comparison with mammography. Integr Cancer Ther. 2002;1(3):238–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Keys JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fleming RM, Fleming MR, McKusick A, Chaudhuri TK. Semiquantification limitations: FMTVDM©℗ demonstrates quantified tumor response to treatment with both regional blood flow and metabolic changes. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(10):1643–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.217018 published ahead of print. PMID: 30030345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleming RM, Fleming MR, Chaudhuri TK, Dooley WC, McKusick A. FMTVDM; B.E.S.T.©℗ imaging theranostically used to guide treatment response in a woman with recalcitrant breast cancer. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2018 ISSN: 2574-1241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2018.11.002111.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable. All patent material is proprietary and require licensure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FHHI-Omnific Imaging-Camelot, Los Angeles, CA, 90245, USA

    Richard M. Fleming, Matthew R. Fleming & Andrew McKusick

  2. Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Tapan K. Chaudhuri

  3. Oklahoma University Health Science Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA

    William C. Dooley

  4. Sebec Consulting & Media, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Andrew McKusick

Authors
  1. Richard M. Fleming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew R. Fleming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tapan K. Chaudhuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William C. Dooley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew McKusick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author contributed to the subject matter within the LTE. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard M. Fleming.

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information

Included on cover sheet.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Consent granted by all authors.

Competing interests

The patent was issued to the primary author by the USPTO. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fleming, R.M., Fleming, M.R., Chaudhuri, T.K. et al. Letter to the Editor: A response to Hruska’s case study on molecular breast imaging and the need for true tissue quantification. Breast Cancer Res 21, 15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-019-1103-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-019-1103-6

Keywords

Breast Cancer Research

ISSN: 1465-542X

Contact us