Contrast-Enhanced Cone-Beam Breast CT: An Analysis of Diagnostic Value in Predicting Breast Lesion With Rim Enhancement Malignancy

Overview

Journal Front Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2022 Jun 10

PMID 35686106

Authors

Xin Zhao

Jun Yang

Yang Zuo

Wei Kang

Hai Liao

Zhong-Tao Zheng

Dan-Ke Su

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The objective of the current study was to investigate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast computed tomography (CE-CBBCT) for breast lesion with rim enhancement (RE).

Methods: All 36 patients were examined by non-contrast (NC-CBBCT) and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (CE-CBBCT) after contrast media (CM) injection. Qualitative morphological enhancement parameters and quantitative enhancement parameters were compared between malignant and benign groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent factors that could predict breast lesion with RE malignancy. Receiver operating curve (ROC) was used to evaluate prediction performance.

Results: A total of 36 patients with 40 lesions underwent breast CE-CBBCT were enrolled. There were significant differences in most qualitative morphological enhancement parameters between the two groups. A multivariate logistic regression model showed that △standardized HU (INR-INR) [odds ratio (OR) = 1.148, 95% CI = 1.034-1.276, = 0.01] and △standardized HU (RP - RP) (OR = 0.891, 95% CI = 0.814-0.976, = 0.013) were independent indicators in predicting breast lesion with RE malignancy. △standardized HU (INR - INR) combined with △standardized HU (RP - RP) showed significant larger area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and higher sensitivity than each alone ( < 0.001, AUC = 0.932, sensitivity = 92.59%, specificity = 92.31%). The regression equation of the prediction model was as follows: Logit () = 0.351 + 0.138X × △standardized HU (INR - INR) - 0.115 × △standardized HU (RP - RP).

Conclusion: With the observation of qualitative morphological enhancement parameters and the comparison of quantitative enhancement parameters of CBBCT, a reliable basis for the diagnostic accuracy in predicting breast lesion with RE could be provided. These conclusions should be verified in large, well-designed studies.

Citing Articles

Performance evaluation of ML models for preoperative prediction of HER2-low BC based on CE-CBBCT radiomic features: A prospective study.

Chen X, Li M, Liang X, Su D Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(24):e38513.

PMID: 38875420 PMC: 11175967. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038513.

References

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

Uhlig J, Fischer U, Surov A, Lotz J, Wienbeck S . Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT: Analysis of optimal acquisition time for discrimination of breast lesion malignancy. Eur J Radiol. 2018; 99:9-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.003. View

Uematsu T, Kasami M . High-spatial-resolution 3-T breast MRI of nonmasslike enhancement lesions: an analysis of their features as significant predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198(5):1223-30. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7350. 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

Wienbeck S, Lotz J, Fischer U . Review of clinical studies and first clinical experiences with a commercially available cone-beam breast CT in Europe. Clin Imaging. 2016; 42:50-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.11.011. View

Seifert P, Conover D, Zhang Y, Morgan R, Arieno A, Destounis S . Evaluation of malignant breast lesions in the diagnostic setting with cone beam breast computed tomography (Breast CT): feasibility study. Breast J. 2014; 20(4):364-74. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12285. View

Buadu L, Murakami J, Murayama S, Hashiguchi N, Sakai S, Masuda K . Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology. 1996; 200(3):639-49. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.200.3.8756909. View

Kang W, Zhong W, Su D . The cone-beam breast computed tomography characteristics of breast non-mass enhancement lesions. Acta Radiol. 2020; 62(10):1298-1308. DOI: 10.1177/0284185120963923. View

He N, Wu Y, Kong Y, Lv N, Huang Z, Li S . The utility of breast cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasound, and digital mammography for detecting malignant breast tumors: A prospective study with 212 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85(2):392-403. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.11.029. View

10.

Wienbeck S, Uhlig J, Luftner-Nagel S, Zapf A, Surov A, von Fintel E . The role of cone-beam breast-CT for breast cancer detection relative to breast density. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(12):5185-5195. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4911-z. View

11.

Vedantham S, Shi L, Karellas A, OConnell A, Conover D . Personalized estimates of radiation dose from dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population and comparison with diagnostic mammography. Phys Med Biol. 2013; 58(22):7921-36. PMC: 3872967. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/22/7921. View

12.

Wedegartner U, Bick U, Wortler K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G . Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol. 2001; 11(9):1645-50. DOI: 10.1007/s003300100885. View

13.

Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Fukuda K . Breast MRI using the VIBE sequence: clustered ring enhancement in the differential diagnosis of lesions showing non-masslike enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187(2):313-21. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0881. View

14.

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

15.

Kuhl C, Schrading S, Bieling H, Wardelmann E, Leutner C, Koenig R . MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007; 370(9586):485-92. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61232-X. View

16.

Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V . Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010; 375(9714):563-71. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62070-5. View

17.

Wienbeck S, Fischer U, Luftner-Nagel S, Lotz J, Uhlig J . Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI. Eur Radiol. 2018; 28(9):3731-3741. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5376-4. View

18.

Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim K, Mahesh M, Gould R . Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(22):2078-86. PMC: 4635397. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427. View

19.

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