Contrast-enhanced Dedicated Breast CT: Initial Clinical Experience

Overview

Journal Radiology

Specialty Radiology

Date 2010 Aug 20

PMID 20720067

Citations 95

Authors

Nicolas D Prionas

Karen K Lindfors

Shonket Ray

Shih-Ying Huang

Laurel A Beckett

Wayne L Monsky

John M Boone

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify contrast material enhancement of breast lesions scanned with dedicated breast computed tomography (CT) and to compare their conspicuity with that at unenhanced breast CT and mammography.

Materials And Methods: Approval of the institutional review board and the Radiation Use Committee and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Between September 2006 and April 2009, 46 women (mean age, 53.2 years; age range, 35-72 years) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 lesions underwent unenhanced breast CT and contrast material-enhanced breast CT before biopsy. Two radiologists independently scored lesion conspicuity for contrast-enhanced breast CT versus mammography and for contrast-enhanced breast CT versus unenhanced breast CT. Mean lesion voxel intensity was measured in Hounsfield units and normalized to adipose tissue intensity on manually segmented images obtained before and after administration of contrast material. Regression models focused on conspicuity and quantified enhancement were used to estimate the effect of pathologic diagnosis (benign vs malignant), lesion type (mass vs calcifications), breast density, and interradiologist variability.

Results: Fifty-four lesions (25 benign, 29 malignant) in 46 subjects were analyzed. Malignant lesions were seen significantly better at contrast-enhanced breast CT than at unenhanced breast CT (P < .001) or mammography (P < .001). Malignant calcifications (malignant lesions manifested mammographically as microcalcifications only, n = 7) were seen better at contrast-enhanced breast CT than at unenhanced breast CT (P < .001) and were seen similarly at contrast-enhanced breast CT and mammography. Malignant lesions enhanced 55.9 HU +/- 4.0 (standard error), whereas benign lesions enhanced 17.6 HU +/- 6.1 (P < .001). Ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 5) enhanced a mean of 59.6 HU +/- 2.8. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of lesion enhancement yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.876.

Conclusion: Conspicuity of malignant breast lesions, including ductal carcinoma in situ, is significantly improved at contrast-enhanced breast CT. Quantifying lesion enhancement may aid in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer.

Citing Articles

Grating-based phase-contrast computed tomography for breast tissue at an inverse compton source.

Berthe D, Heck L, Resch S, Dierolf M, Brantl J, Gunther B Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):25576.

PMID: 39462058 PMC: 11513984. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-77346-1.

Radiology of fibrosis. Part I: Thoracic organs.

Tarchi S, Salvatore M, Lichtenstein P, Sekar T, Capaccione K, Luk L J Transl Med. 2024; 22(1):609.

PMID: 38956586 PMC: 11218337. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-024-05244-1.

Nomogram for preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors using contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE CB-BCT) quantitative imaging and assessment features.

Su T, Zheng Y, Yang H, Ouyang Z, Fan J, Lin L Radiol Med. 2024; 129(5):737-750.

PMID: 38512625 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-024-01803-0.

Photon-counting CT of degenerative changes and rupture of silicone breast implants: a pilot study.

Neubauer C, Gebler O, Wilpert C, Scherwitz M, Efinger N, Bamberg F Eur Radiol Exp. 2024; 8(1):36.

PMID: 38480588 PMC: 10937890. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-024-00434-4.

Microcalcification detectability in breast CT images using CNN observers.

Lyu S, Abbey C, Hernandez A, Boone J Med Phys. 2023; 51(2):933-945.

PMID: 38154070 PMC: 10922367. DOI: 10.1002/mp.16922.

References

Cuenod C, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretiere J . Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging. 2006; 31(2):188-93. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-005-0386-5. View

Chang C, Sibala J, Fritz S, Dwyer 3rd S, Templeton A . Specific value of computed tomographic breast scanner (CT/M) in diagnosis of breast diseases. Radiology. 1979; 132(3):647-52. DOI: 10.1148/132.3.647. View

Boone J, Kwan A, Seibert J, Shah N, Lindfors K, Nelson T . Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT. Med Phys. 2006; 32(12):3767-76. DOI: 10.1118/1.2128126. View

Goh V, Padhani A . Imaging tumor angiogenesis: functional assessment using MDCT or MRI?. Abdom Imaging. 2005; 31(2):194-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-005-0387-4. View

Chang C, Sibala J, Fritz S, Dwyer 3rd S, Templeton A, Lin F . Computed tomography in detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Cancer. 1980; 46(4 Suppl):939-46. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19800815)46:4+<939::aid-cncr2820461315>3.0.co;2-l. View

Lindfors K, Boone J, Nelson T, Yang K, Kwan A, Miller D . Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2008; 246(3):725-33. PMC: 2798097. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2463070410. View

Perrone A, Lo Mele L, Sassi S, Marini M, Testaverde L, Izzo L . MDCT of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(6):1644-51. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3145. View

Inoue M, Sano T, Watai R, Ashikaga R, Ueda K, Watatani M . Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181(3):679-86. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.3.1810679. View

Chang C, Sibala J, Fritz S, GALLAGHER J, Dwyer 3rd S, Templeton A . Computed tomographic evaluation of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978; 131(3):459-64. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.131.3.459. View

10.

Kuhl C, Schild H, Morakkabati N . Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology. 2005; 236(3):789-800. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2363040811. View

11.

Zhao H, Xu R, Ouyang Q, Chen L, Dong B, Huihua Y . Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is helpful in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 73(2):288-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.043. View

12.

Jong R, Yaffe M, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak R, Danjoux N, Gunesekara A . Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003; 228(3):842-50. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2283020961. View

13.

Chen S, Carton A, Albert M, Conant E, Schnall M, Maidment A . Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis. Acad Radiol. 2007; 14(2):229-38. PMC: 1850283. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.10.022. View

14.

Okafuji T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T, Sakai S . Circumscribed mass lesions on mammography: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to differentiate malignancy and benignancy. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2008; 7(4):195-204. DOI: 10.2463/mrms.7.195. View

15.

Schnall M, Blume J, Bluemke D, DeAngelis G, DeBruhl N, Harms S . Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2005; 238(1):42-53. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2381042117. View

16.

Boone J, Kwan A, Yang K, Burkett G, Lindfors K, Nelson T . Computed tomography for imaging the breast. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2006; 11(2):103-11. DOI: 10.1007/s10911-006-9017-1. View

17.

Dawson P . Functional imaging in CT. Eur J Radiol. 2006; 60(3):331-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.06.023. View

18.

Miles K . Tumour angiogenesis and its relation to contrast enhancement on computed tomography: a review. Eur J Radiol. 1999; 30(3):198-205. DOI: 10.1016/s0720-048x(99)00012-1. View

19.

Newell D, Nie K, Chen J, Hsu C, Yu H, Nalcioglu O . Selection of diagnostic features on breast MRI to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions using computer-aided diagnosis: differences in lesions presenting as mass and non-mass-like enhancement. Eur Radiol. 2009; 20(4):771-81. PMC: 2835636. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1616-y. View