open access

Vol 24, No 1 (2021)
Review paper
Published online: 2021-01-29
Submitted: 2020-05-16
Accepted: 2020-10-21
Get Citation

Breast Cancer and PET Imaging

Ismet Sarikaya
DOI: 10.5603/NMR.2021.0004
·
Pubmed: 33576480
·
Nucl. Med. Rev 2021;24(1):16-26.

open access

Vol 24, No 1 (2021)
Reviews
Published online: 2021-01-29
Submitted: 2020-05-16
Accepted: 2020-10-21

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women and among the most common indications of oncologic positron
emission tomography (PET) studies. In this review article, updated anatomical, pathological, and clinical information about
breast cancer were provided for Nuclear Medicine physicians to better understand breast cancer and interpret PET images
and a review of the literature on the use of PET imaging in breast cancer was summarized.

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women and among the most common indications of oncologic positron
emission tomography (PET) studies. In this review article, updated anatomical, pathological, and clinical information about
breast cancer were provided for Nuclear Medicine physicians to better understand breast cancer and interpret PET images
and a review of the literature on the use of PET imaging in breast cancer was summarized.

Get Citation

Keywords

Breast cancer; PET, FDG; NaF; FES

About this article
Title

Breast Cancer and PET Imaging

Journal

Nuclear Medicine Review

Issue

Vol 24, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Review paper

Pages

16-26

Published online

2021-01-29

DOI

10.5603/NMR.2021.0004

Pubmed

33576480

Bibliographic record

Nucl. Med. Rev 2021;24(1):16-26.

Keywords

Breast cancer
PET
FDG
NaF
FES

Authors

Ismet Sarikaya

References (98)
  1. World Health Organization (2019). Breast cancer: Early diagnosis and screening. https://www.who.int/cancer/ prevention/diagnosis-screening/breast-cancer/en/ (18.04.2019).
  2. American Cancer Society. Definitions. 2020.
  3. Guinebretière JM, Menet E, Tardivon A, et al. Normal and pathological breast, the histological basis. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 54(1): 6–14.
  4. Suami H, Pan WR, Mann GB, et al. The lymphatic anatomy of the breast and its implications for sentinel lymph node biopsy: a human cadaver study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15(3): 863–871.
  5. Urban JA. Management of operable breast cancer: the surgeon's view. Cancer. 1978; 42(4): 2066–2077, doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197810)42:4<2066::aid-cncr2820420458>3.0.co;2-v.
  6. Elmadahm AA, Gill PG, Bochner M, et al. Mammary lymphoscintigraphy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1995; 36(10): 1775–1780.
  7. Oeffinger K, Fontham E, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk. JAMA. 2015; 314(15): 1599.
  8. Gülsün M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyürek M. Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System criteria and Le Gal's classification. Eur J Radiol. 2003; 47(3): 227–231.
  9. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Eighth Edition © The American College of Surgeons (ACS), Chicago, Illinois. Last updated 01. ; 25: 2018.
  10. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Version 4 2017-February. ; 7: 2018.
  11. Arps DP, Healy P, Zhao L, et al. Invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features: a comparison study to invasive ductal and invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 138(3): 719–726.
  12. Malhotra GK, Zhao X, Band H, et al. Histological, molecular and functional subtypes of breast cancers. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010; 10(10): 955–960.
  13. Dawood S, Merajver SD, Viens P, et al. International expert panel on inflammatory breast cancer: consensus statement for standardized diagnosis and treatment. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22(3): 515–523.
  14. McCart Reed AE, Kutasovic JR, Lakhani SR, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology, biomarkers and 'omics. Breast Cancer Res. 2015; 17: 12.
  15. Dunnwald L, Rossing M, Li C. Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics, and prognosis: a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Research. 2007; 9(1).
  16. Dai X, Xiang L, Li T, et al. Cancer Hallmarks, Biomarkers and Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes. J Cancer. 2016; 7(10): 1281–1294.
  17. Duffy MJ, Synnott NC, Crown J. Mutant p53 in breast cancer: potential as a therapeutic target and biomarker. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 170(2): 213–219.
  18. Langley RR, Fidler IJ. The seed and soil hypothesis revisited--the role of tumor-stroma interactions in metastasis to different organs. Int J Cancer. 2011; 128(11): 2527–2535.
  19. Xiao W, Zheng S, Yang A, et al. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of distant metastasis at initial diagnosis: a population-based study. Cancer Manag Res. 2018; 10: 5329–5338.
  20. Soni A, Ren Z, Hameed O, et al. Breast cancer subtypes predispose the site of distant metastases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015; 143(4): 471–478.
  21. Smid M, Wang Y, Zhang Yi, et al. Subtypes of breast cancer show preferential site of relapse. Cancer Res. 2008; 68(9): 3108–3114.
  22. Gerratana L, Fanotto V, Bonotto M, et al. Pattern of metastasis and outcome in patients with breast cancer. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2015; 32(2): 125–133.
  23. Mathew A, Rajagopal PS, Villgran V, et al. Distinct Pattern of Metastases in Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2017; 77(6): 660–666.
  24. Borst MJ, Ingold JA. Metastatic patterns of invasive lobular versus invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Surgery. 1993; 114(4): 637–41; discussion 641.
  25. Howlader N, Cronin KA, Kurian AW, et al. Differences in Breast Cancer Survival by Molecular Subtypes in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018; 27(6): 619–626.
  26. Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A. Assessing F-FDG Uptake in the Sentinel Lymph Node in Breast Cancer. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019; 47(2): 149–153.
  27. Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, et al. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and postoperative histopathology, hormone receptor status, thymidine labelling index and p53 in primary breast cancer: a preliminary observation. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998; 25(10): 1429–1434.
  28. Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of uptake level using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008; 38(4): 250–258.
  29. Wang CL, MacDonald LR, Rogers JV, et al. Positron emission mammography: correlation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and 18F-FDG. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(2): W247–W255.
  30. Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A, Albatineh AN, et al. Is there a difference in FDG PET findings of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast with and without coexisting DCIS? Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2020; 8: 27–35.
  31. Jo I, Zeon SK, Kim SH, et al. Correlation of Primary Tumor FDG Uptake with Clinicopathologic Prognostic Factors in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 49(1): 19–25.
  32. Kim JY, Lee SH, Kim S, et al. Tumour 18 F-FDG Uptake on preoperative PET/CT may predict axillary lymph node metastasis in ER-positive/HER2-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer subtypes. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25(4): 1172–1181.
  33. Ege Aktas G, Taştekin E, Sarikaya A. Assessment of biological and clinical aggressiveness of invasive ductal breast cancer using baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT-derived volumetric parameters. Nucl Med Commun. 2018; 39(1): 83–93.
  34. Gil-Rendo A, Martínez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, et al. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2009; 96(2): 166–170.
  35. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38(3): 426–435.
  36. Yoon HJ, Kim Y, Kim BS. Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity predicts invasive components in breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25(12): 3648–3658.
  37. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001; 42(1): 9–16.
  38. Fujioka T, Kubota K, Toriihara A, et al. Tumor characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ of breast visualized on [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography: Results from a retrospective study. World J Radiol. 2016; 8(8): 743–749.
  39. de Mascarel I, MacGrogan G, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, et al. Breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: a definition supported by a long-term study of 1248 serially sectioned ductal carcinomas. Cancer. 2002; 94(8): 2134–2142.
  40. Yu KD, Wu LM, Liu GY, et al. Different distribution of breast cancer subtypes in breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), DCIS with microinvasion, and DCIS with invasion component. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18(5): 1342–1348.
  41. Jo BH, Chun YK. Heterogeneity of invasive ductal carcinoma: proposal for a hypothetical classification. J Korean Med Sci. 2006; 21(3): 460–468.
  42. Logullo AF, Godoy AB, Mourão-Neto M, et al. Presence of ductal carcinoma in situ confers an improved prognosis for patients with T1N0M0 invasive breast carcinoma. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2002; 35(8): 913–919.
  43. Pinder SE, Ellis IO. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)--current definitions and classification. Breast Cancer Res. 2003; 5(5): 254–257.
  44. Dieterich M, Hartwig F, Stubert J, et al. Accompanying DCIS in breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma is predictive of improved local recurrence-free survival. Breast. 2014; 23(4): 346–351.
  45. Wong H, Lau S, Yau T, et al. Presence of an in situ component is associated with reduced biological aggressiveness of size-matched invasive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010; 102: 1391–6.
  46. Berg G, Kalisher L, Osmond J, et al. 99mTc-Diphosphonate Concentration in Primary Breast Carcinoma. Radiology. 1973; 109(2): 393–394.
  47. Sarikaya I, Sharma P, Sarikaya A. F-18 fluoride uptake in primary breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2018; 32(10): 678–686.
  48. Kozlow W, Guise TA. Breast cancer metastasis to bone: mechanisms of osteolysis and implications for therapy. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2005; 10(2): 169–180.
  49. Sheikhbahaei S, Jones KM, Werner RA, et al. F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Nucl Med. 2019; 33(5): 351–361.
  50. Dashevsky BZ, Goldman DA, Parsons M, et al. Appearance of untreated bone metastases from breast cancer on FDG PET/CT: importance of histologic subtype. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(11): 1666–1673.
  51. Rauscher I, Eiber M, Fürst S, et al. PET/MR imaging in the detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions: technical and diagnostic evaluation in comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014; 55(5): 724–729.
  52. Martin AM, Cagney DN, Catalano PJ, et al. Brain Metastases in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3(8): 1069–1077.
  53. Gaeta CM, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sher AC, et al. Recurrent and metastatic breast cancer PET, PET/CT, PET/MRI: FDG and new biomarkers. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 57(4): 352–366.
  54. Bochev P, Klisarova A, Kaprelyan A, et al. Brain metastases detectability of routine whole body (18)F-FDG PET and low dose CT scanning in 2502 asymptomatic patients with solid extracranial tumors. Hell J Nucl Med. 2012; 15(2): 125–129.
  55. Kitajima K, Nakamoto Y, Okizuka H, et al. Accuracy of whole-body FDG-PET/CT for detecting brain metastases from non-central nervous system tumors. Ann Nucl Med. 2008; 22(7): 595–602.
  56. Rostami R, Mittal S, Rostami P, et al. Brain metastasis in breast cancer: a comprehensive literature review. J Neurooncol. 2016; 127(3): 407–414.
  57. He ZY, Wu SG, Peng F, et al. Up-Regulation of RFC3 Promotes Triple Negative Breast Cancer Metastasis and is Associated With Poor Prognosis Via EMT. Transl Oncol. 2017; 10(1): 1–9.
  58. Patterson SA, Khalil HI, Panicek DM, et al. Hepatic lesions deemed too small to characterize at CT: prevalence and importance in women with breast cancer. Radiology. 2005; 235(3): 872–878.
  59. Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, et al. Comparison of Whole-Body (18)F FDG PET/MR Imaging and Whole-Body (18)F FDG PET/CT in Terms of Lesion Detection and Radiation Dose in Patients with Breast Cancer. Radiology. 2016; 281(1): 193–202.
  60. Namasivayam S, Martin DR, Saini S. Imaging of liver metastases: MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2007; 7: 2–9.
  61. Annovazzi A, Rea S, Vici P, et al. Dual-time 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of liver metastases in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2018; 39(12): 1183–1189.
  62. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, et al. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11(11): 2101–2111.
  63. Schelling M, Avril N, Nährig J, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(8): 1689–1695.
  64. Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(8): 1676–1688.
  65. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(34): 5366–5372.
  66. Schwarz-Dose J, Untch M, Tiling R, et al. Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(4): 535–541.
  67. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Journal of Cancer. 1999; 35(13): 1773–1782.
  68. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(5): 571–578.
  69. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2009; 50(Suppl_1).
  70. Katayama T, Kubota K, Machida Y, et al. Evaluation of sequential FDG-PET/CT for monitoring bone metastasis of breast cancer during therapy: correlation between morphological and metabolic changes with tumor markers. Ann Nucl Med. 2012; 26(5): 426–435.
  71. Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Metabolic flare: indicator of hormone responsiveness in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19(11): 2797–2803.
  72. Lecouvet FE, Talbot JN, Messiou C, et al. EORTC Imaging Group. Monitoring the response of bone metastases to treatment with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and nuclear medicine techniques: a review and position statement by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer imaging group. Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50(15): 2519–2531.
  73. Padhani AR, Gogbashian A. Bony metastases: assessing response to therapy with whole-body diffusion MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2011; 11(1A): S129–S154.
  74. Lafourcade A, His M, Baglietto L, et al. Factors associated with breast cancer recurrences or mortality and dynamic prediction of death using history of cancer recurrences: the French E3N cohort. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1): 171.
  75. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(14): 1143–1150.
  76. Grassetto G, Fornasiero A, Otello D, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with breast cancer and rising Ca 15-3 with negative conventional imaging: a multicentre study. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 80(3): 828–833.
  77. Grahek D, Montravers F, Kerrou K, et al. [18F]FDG in recurrent breast cancer: diagnostic performances, clinical impact and relevance of induced changes in management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004; 31(2): 179–188.
  78. Cochet A, David S, Moodie K, et al. The utility of 18 F-FDG PET/CT for suspected recurrent breast cancer: impact and prognostic stratification. Cancer Imaging. 2014; 14: 13.
  79. Aukema TS, Rutgers EJ, Vogel WV, et al. The role of FDG PET/CT in patients with locoregional breast cancer recurrence: a comparison to conventional imaging techniques. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010; 36(4): 387–392.
  80. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A, et al. Comprehensive imaging of tumor recurrence in breast cancer patients using whole-body MRI at 1.5 and 3 T compared to FDG-PET-CT. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 65(1): 47–58.
  81. Evangelista L, Baretta Z, Vinante L, et al. Tumour markers and FDG PET/CT for prediction of disease relapse in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38(2): 293–301.
  82. Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, et al. Evaluation of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI, ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85(2): 459–465.
  83. Groheux D, Sanna A, Majdoub M, et al. Baseline Tumor 18F-FDG Uptake and Modifications After 2 Cycles of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Are Prognostic of Outcome in ER+/HER2- Breast Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(6): 824–831.
  84. Taghipour M, Wray R, Sheikhbahaei S, et al. FDG Avidity and Tumor Burden: Survival Outcomes for Patients With Recurrent Breast Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 206(4): 846–855.
  85. Chang CC, Chen CJ, Hsu WL, et al. Prognostic Significance of Metabolic Parameters and Textural Features on F-FDG PET/CT in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of Breast. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1): 10946.
  86. Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, et al. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011; 378(9793): 771–784.
  87. Linden HM, Stekhova SA, Link JM, et al. Quantitative fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(18): 2793–2799.
  88. Nienhuis HH, van Kruchten M, Elias SG, et al. F-Fluoroestradiol Tumor Uptake Is Heterogeneous and Influenced by Site of Metastasis in Breast Cancer Patients. J Nucl Med. 2018; 59(8): 1212–1218.
  89. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987; 235(4785): 177–182.
  90. Dijkers EC, Oude Munnink TH, Kosterink JG, et al. Biodistribution of 89Zr-trastuzumab and PET imaging of HER2-positive lesions in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010; 87(5): 586–592.
  91. Smyczek-Gargya B, Fersis N, Dittmann H, et al. PET with [18F]fluorothymidine for imaging of primary breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004; 31(5): 720–724.
  92. Contractor KB, Kenny LM, Stebbing J, et al. [18F]-3'Deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography and breast cancer response to docetaxel. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17(24): 7664–7672.
  93. Yoon HJ, Kang KW, Chun InK, et al. Correlation of breast cancer subtypes, based on estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2, with functional imaging parameters from ⁶⁸Ga-RGD PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014; 41(8): 1534–1543.
  94. Beer AJ, Niemeyer M, Carlsen J, et al. Patterns of alphavbeta3 expression in primary and metastatic human breast cancer as shown by 18F-Galacto-RGD PET. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(2): 255–259.
  95. Cheng J, Lei Li, Xu J, et al. 18F-fluoromisonidazole PET/CT: a potential tool for predicting primary endocrine therapy resistance in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013; 54(3): 333–340.
  96. Tolkach Y, Gevensleben H, Bundschuh R, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen in breast cancer: a comprehensive evaluation of expression and a case report of radionuclide therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 169(3): 447–455.
  97. Kumar R, Mittal BR, Bhattacharya A, et al. Synchronous Detection of Male Breast Cancer and Prostatic Cancer in a Patient With Suspected Prostatic Carcinoma on 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2018; 43(6): 431–432.
  98. Sathekge M, Lengana T, Modiselle M, et al. Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET imaging in breast carcinoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44(4): 689–694.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73 street, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl