Dedicated Three-dimensional Breast Computed Tomography: Lesion Characteristic Perception by Radiologists

Overview

Journal J Clin Imaging Sci

Specialty Radiology

Date 2016 May 20

PMID 27195180

Citations 3

Authors

Cherie Marie Kuzmiak

Elodia B Cole

Donglin Zeng

Laura A Tuttle

Doreen Steed

Etta D Pisano

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess radiologist confidence in the characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a dedicated three-dimensional breast computed tomography (DBCT) system in comparison to diagnostic two-dimensional digital mammography (dxDM).

Materials And Methods: Twenty women were recruited who were to undergo a breast biopsy for a Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5 lesion evaluated with dxDM in this Institutional Review Board-approved study. The enrolled subjects underwent imaging of the breast(s) of concern using DBCT. Seven radiologists reviewed the cases. Each reader compared DBCT to the dxDM and was asked to specify the lesion type and BI-RADS score for each lesion and modality. They also compared lesion characteristics: Shape for masses or morphology for calcifications; and margins for masses or distribution for calcifications between the modalities using confidence scores (0-100).

Results: Twenty-four biopsied lesions were included in this study: 17 (70.8%) masses and 7 (29.2%) calcifications. Eight (33.3%) lesions were malignant, and 16 (66.7%) were benign. Across all lesions, there was no significant difference in the margin/distribution (Δ = -0.99, P = 0.84) and shape/morphology (Δ = -0.10, P = 0.98) visualization confidence scores of DBCT in relation to dxDM. However, analysis by lesion type showed a statistically significant increase in reader shape (Δ =11.34, P = 0.013) and margin (Δ =9.93, P = 0.023) visualization confidence with DBCT versus dxDM for masses and significant decrease in reader morphology (Δ = -29.95, P = 0.001) and distribution (Δ = -28.62, P = 0.002) visualization confidence for calcifications.

Conclusion: Reader confidence in the characterization of suspicious masses is significantly improved with DBCT, but reduced for calcifications. Further study is needed to determine whether this technology can be used for breast cancer screening.

Citing Articles

Applications of Computational Methods in Biomedical Breast Cancer Imaging Diagnostics: A Review.

Aruleba K, Obaido G, Ogbuokiri B, Fadaka A, Klein A, Adekiya T J Imaging. 2021; 6(10).

PMID: 34460546 PMC: 8321173. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging6100105.

Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part I. Historical evolution and technical aspects.

Zhu Y, OConnell A, Ma Y, Liu A, Li H, Zhang Y Eur Radiol. 2021; 32(3):1579-1589.

PMID: 34342694 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08179-z.

Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.

Guo R, Lu G, Qin B, Fei B Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017; 44(1):37-70.

PMID: 29107353 PMC: 6169997. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.09.012.

References

Coburn N, Chung M, Fulton J, Cady B . Decreased breast cancer tumor size, stage, and mortality in Rhode Island: an example of a well-screened population. Cancer Control. 2004; 11(4):222-30. DOI: 10.1177/107327480401100403. View

Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum J, Acharyya S . Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(17):1773-83. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911. View

OConnell A, Conover D, Zhang Y, Seifert P, Logan-Young W, Lin C . Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195(2):496-509. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1017. View

Prionas N, Lindfors K, Ray S, Huang S, Beckett L, Monsky W . Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2010; 256(3):714-23. PMC: 2923727. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10092311. View

Jatoi I, Chen B, Anderson W, Rosenberg P . Breast cancer mortality trends in the United States according to estrogen receptor status and age at diagnosis. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(13):1683-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.2106. View

Stomper P, DSouza D, DiNitto P, Arredondo M . Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 167(5):1261-5. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.167.5.8911192. View

Fracheboud J, Otto S, Van Dijck J, Broeders M, Verbeek A, de Koning H . Decreased rates of advanced breast cancer due to mammography screening in The Netherlands. Br J Cancer. 2004; 91(5):861-7. PMC: 2409867. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602075. View

Mandelson M, Oestreicher N, Porter P, White D, Finder C, Taplin S . Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(13):1081-7. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081. View

Haas B, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts L . Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013; 269(3):694-700. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130307. View

10.

Roth R, Maidment A, Weinstein S, Roth S, Conant E . Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. Radiographics. 2014; 34(4):E89-102. PMC: 4319526. DOI: 10.1148/rg.344130087. View

11.

Peppard H, Nicholson B, Rochman C, Merchant J, Mayo 3rd R, Harvey J . Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Indications and Clinical Applications. Radiographics. 2015; 35(4):975-90. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2015140204. View

12.

Buist D, Porter P, Lehman C, Taplin S, White E . Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(19):1432-40. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh269. View

13.

Skaane P, Bandos A, Gullien R, Eben E, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U . Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013; 267(1):47-56. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121373. View

14.

Friedewald S, Rafferty E, Rose S, Durand M, Plecha D, Greenberg J . Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014; 311(24):2499-507. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.6095. View

15.

Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter C . Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138(3):168-75. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008. View

16.

Whitehead J, CARLILE T, Kopecky K, Thompson D, GILBERT Jr F, PRESENT A . Wolfe mammographic parenchymal patterns. A study of the masking hypothesis of Egan and Mosteller. Cancer. 1985; 56(6):1280-6. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850915)56:6<1280::aid-cncr2820560610>3.0.co;2-8. View

17.

Hendrick R . Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010; 257(1):246-53. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100570. View

18.

OConnell A, Kawakyu-OConnor D . Dedicated Cone-beam Breast Computed Tomography and Diagnostic Mammography: Comparison of Radiation Dose, Patient Comfort, And Qualitative Review of Imaging Findings in BI-RADS 4 and 5 Lesions. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2012; 2:7. PMC: 3307212. DOI: 10.4103/2156-7514.93274. View

19.

Gennaro G, Toledano A, Di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M . Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol. 2009; 20(7):1545-53. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5. View

20.

Boone J, Nelson T, Lindfors K, Seibert J . Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology. 2001; 221(3):657-67. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2213010334. View