Title: The Potential Role of Dedicated 3D Breast CT as a Diagnostic Tool: Review and Early Clinical Examples
Abstract: The Breast JournalVolume 20, Issue 6 p. 592-605 Original Article The Potential Role of Dedicated 3D Breast CT as a Diagnostic Tool: Review and Early Clinical Examples Avice M. O'Connell MD, Avice M. O'Connell MD Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New YorkSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Karellas PhD, Corresponding Author Andrew Karellas PhD Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MassachusettsAddress correspondence and reprint requests to: Andrew Karellas, PhD, Professor of Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Room S2-836, Worcester, MA 01655, USA, or e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSrinivasan Vedantham PhD, Srinivasan Vedantham PhD Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MassachusettsSearch for more papers by this author Avice M. O'Connell MD, Avice M. O'Connell MD Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New YorkSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Karellas PhD, Corresponding Author Andrew Karellas PhD Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MassachusettsAddress correspondence and reprint requests to: Andrew Karellas, PhD, Professor of Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Room S2-836, Worcester, MA 01655, USA, or e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSrinivasan Vedantham PhD, Srinivasan Vedantham PhD Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MassachusettsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 September 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12327Citations: 55Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract Mammography is the gold standard in routine screening for the detection of breast cancer in the general population. However, limitations in sensitivity, particularly in dense breasts, has motivated the development of alternative imaging techniques such as digital breast tomosynthesis, whole breast ultrasound, breast-specific gamma imaging, and more recently dedicated breast computed tomography or "breast CT". Virtually all diagnostic work-ups of asymptomatic nonpalpable findings arise from screening mammography. In most cases, diagnostic mammography and ultrasound are sufficient for diagnosis, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) playing an occasional role. Digital breast tomosynthesis, a limited-angle tomographic technique, is increasingly being used for screening. Dedicated breast CT has full three-dimensional (3D) capability with near-isotropic resolution, which could potentially improve diagnostic accuracy. In current dedicated breast CT clinical prototypes, 300–500 low-dose projections are acquired in a circular trajectory around the breast using a flat panel detector, followed by image reconstruction to provide the 3D breast volume. The average glandular dose to the breast from breast CT can range from as little as a two-view screening mammogram to approximately that of a diagnostic mammography examination. Breast CT displays 3D images of the internal structures of the breast; therefore, evaluation of suspicious features like microcalcifications, masses, and asymmetries can be made in multiple anatomical planes from a single scan. The potential role of breast CT for diagnostic imaging is illustrated here through clinical examples such as imaging soft tissue abnormalities and microcalcifications. The potential for breast CT to serve as an imaging tool for extent of disease evaluation and for monitoring neo-adjuvant chemotherapy response is also illustrated. References 1Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1784– 92. 2Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165– 75. 3Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151– 63. 4Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, et al. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012; 265: 59– 69. 5Kuhl CK, Kuhn W, Schild H. Management of women at high risk for breast cancer: new imaging beyond mammography. Breast 2005; 14: 480– 6. 6Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, et al. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology 2011; 258: 106– 18. 7Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital Tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205: 399– 406. 8Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al. Evaluation of linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: 219– 24. 9Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e1074– 82. 10Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, et al. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 1401– 8. 11Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, et al. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 2012; 262: 788– 96. 12Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013; 266: 104– 13. 13Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267: 47– 56. 14Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1295– 303. 15Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004; 292: 2735– 42. 16Kopans DB. Breast Imaging, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997. 17Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 2001; 28: 419– 37. 18Vedantham S, Shi L, Glick SJ, et al. Scaling-law for the energy dependence of anatomic power spectrum in dedicated breast CT. Med Phys 2013; 40: 011901. 19Chen L, Abbey CK, Nosratieh A, et al. Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies. Med Phys 2012; 39: 1435– 41. 20Vedantham S, Shi L, Karellas A, et al. Dedicated breast CT: anatomic power spectrum. The Second International Conference on Image Formation in X-ray Computed Tomography; June 24-27; Fort Douglas/Salt Lake City, UT2012. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Image Formation in X-ray Computed Tomography p. 70-3. 21Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773– 83. 22Yaffe MJ, Boone JM, Packard N, et al. The myth of the 50-50 breast. Med Phys 2009; 36: 5437– 43. 23Vedantham S, Shi L, Karellas A, et al. Dedicated breast CT: fibroglandular volume measurements in a diagnostic population. Med Phys 2012; 39: 7317– 28. 24Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, et al. The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198: W292– 5. 25Saftlas AF, Hoover RN, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer. Cancer 1991; 67: 2833– 8. 26Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 227– 36. 27Chang CH, Sibala JL, Fritz SL, et al. Computed tomography in detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Cancer 1980; 46(4 Suppl): 939– 46. 28Boone JM, Nelson TR, Lindfors KK, et al. Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 2001; 221: 657– 67. 29Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, et al. Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2008; 246: 725– 33. 30O'Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y, et al. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 496– 509. 31Glide-Hurst CK, Duric N, Littrup P. Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images. Med Phys 2008; 35: 3988– 97. 32Xi L, Li X, Yao L, et al. Design and evaluation of a hybrid photoacoustic tomography and diffuse optical tomography system for breast cancer detection. Med Phys 2012; 39: 2584– 94. 33Raylman RR, Majewski S, Smith MF, et al. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53: 637– 53. 34Perez KL, Cutler SJ, Madhav P, et al. Characterizing the contribution of cardiac and hepatic uptake in dedicated breast SPECT using tilted trajectories. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 4721– 34. 35Nosratieh A, Yang K, Aminololama-Shakeri S, et al. Comprehensive assessment of the slice sensitivity profiles in breast tomosynthesis and breast CT. Med Phys 2012; 39: 7254– 61. 36Vedantham S, Karellas A, Emmons MM, et al. Dedicated breast CT: geometric design considerations to maximize posterior breast coverage. Phys Med Biol 2013; 58: 4099– 118. 37Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168– 75. 38Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 390– 9. 39Kerlikowske K, Ichikawa L, Miglioretti DL, et al. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 386– 95. 40Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229: 261– 8. 41Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228: 842– 50. 42Watt AC, Ackerman LV, Windham JP, et al. Breast lesions: differential diagnosis using digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 1986; 159: 39– 42. 43Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2011; 78: 112– 21. 44Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Ray S, et al. Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010; 256: 714– 23. 45Hylton NM, Blume JD, Bernreuter WK, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy–results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. Radiology 2012; 263: 663– 72. 46Boone JM, Kwan AL, Seibert JA, et al. Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT. Med Phys 2005; 32: 3767– 76. 47Sechopoulos I, Feng SS, D'Orsi CJ. Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype. Med Phys 2010; 37: 4110– 20. 48Vedantham S, Shi L, Karellas A, et al. Personalized estimates of radiation dose from dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population and comparison with diagnostic mammography. Phys Med Biol 2013; 58: 7921– 36. 49Feng SS, Sechopoulos I. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology 2012; 263: 35– 42. 50Crotty DJ, Brady SL, Jackson DC, et al. Evaluation of the absorbed dose to the breast using radiochromic film in a dedicated CT mammotomography system employing a quasi-monochromatic x-ray beam. Med Phys 2011; 38: 3232– 45. Citing Literature Volume20, Issue6November/December 2014Pages 592-605 ReferencesRelatedInformation