Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography

被引:19
作者
Aminololama-Shakeri, Shadi [1 ]
Abbey, Craig K. [2 ]
Lopez, Javier E. [3 ]
Hernandez, Andrew M. [1 ]
Gazi, Peymon [1 ]
Boone, John M. [1 ]
Lindfors, Karen K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[2] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Psychol & Brain Sci, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
[3] Univ Calif Davis, Med Ctr, Cardiovasc Div, Internal Med Dept, Davis, CA 95616 USA
关键词
VIEWS; CALCIFICATIONS;
D O I
10.1259/bjr.20181034
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: Compare conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT (CEbCT), tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM). Methods: 100 females with BI-RADS 4/5 lesions underwent CEbCT and/or DBT prior to biopsy in this IRB approved, HIPAA compliant study. Two breast radiologists adjudicated lesion conspicuity scores (CS) for each modality independently. Data are shown as mean CS +/- standard deviation. Two-sided t-test was used to determine significance between two modalities within each subgroup. Multiple comparisons were controlled by the false-discovery rate set to 5%. Results: 50% of studied lesions were biopsy-confirmed malignancies. Malignant masses were more conspicuous on CEbCT than on DBT or DM (9.7 +/- 0.5, n = 25; 6.8 +/- 3.1, n = 15; 6.7 +/- 3.0, n = 27; p < 0.05). Malignant calcifications were equally conspicuous on all three modalities (CEbCT 8.7 +/- 0.8, n = 18; DBT 8.5 +/- 0.6, n = 15; DM 8.8 +/- 0.7, n = 23; p = NS). Benign masses were equally conspicuous on CEbCT (6.6 +/- 4.1, n = 22); DBT (6.4 +/- 3.8, n = 17); DM (5.9 +/- 3.6, n = 24; p = NS). Benign calcifications CS were similar between DBT (8.5 +/- 1.0, n = 17) and DM (8.8 +/- 0.8, n = 26; p = NS) but less conspicuous on CEbCT (4.0 +/- 2.9, n = 25, p < 0.001). 55 females were imaged with all modalities. Results paralleled the entire cohort. 69%(n = 62) of females imaged by CEbCT had dense breasts. Benign/malignant lesion CSs in dense/non-dense categories were 4.8 +/- 3.7, n = 33, vs 6.0 +/- 3.9, n = 14, p = 0.35; 9.2 +/- 0.9, n = 29 vs. 9.4 +/- 0.7, n = 14; p = 0.29, respectively. Conclusion: Malignant masses are more conspicuous on CEbCT than DM or DBT. Malignant microcalcifications are equally conspicuous on all three modalities. Benign calcifications remain better visualized by DM and DBT than with CEbCT. We observed no differences in benign masses on all modalities. CS of both benign and malignant lesions were independent of breast density. Advances in knowledge: CEbCT is a promising diagnostic imaging modality for suspicious breast lesions.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Dedicated Breast CT: Screening Technique of the Future [J].
Aminololama-Shakeri S. ;
Hargreaves J.B. ;
Boone J.M. ;
Lindfors K.K. .
Current Breast Cancer Reports, 2016, 8 (4) :242-247
[2]   Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography [J].
Aminololama-Shakeri, Shadi ;
Abbey, Craig K. ;
Gazi, Peymon ;
Prionas, Nicolas D. ;
Nosratieh, Anita ;
Li, Chin-Shang ;
Boone, John M. ;
Lindfors, Karen K. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (01) :297-303
[3]   CONTROLLING THE FALSE DISCOVERY RATE - A PRACTICAL AND POWERFUL APPROACH TO MULTIPLE TESTING [J].
BENJAMINI, Y ;
HOCHBERG, Y .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 1995, 57 (01) :289-300
[4]   Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT [J].
Boone, JM ;
Kwan, ALC ;
Seibert, JA ;
Shah, N ;
Lindfors, KK ;
Nelson, TR .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2005, 32 (12) :3767-3776
[5]   Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data [J].
Boone, JM .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (05) :869-875
[6]   An X-ray Computed Tomography/Positron Emission Tomography System Designed Specifically for Breast Imaging [J].
Boone, John M. ;
Yang, Kai ;
Burkett, George W. ;
Packard, Nathan J. ;
Huang, Shih-ying ;
Bowen, Spencer ;
Badawi, Ramsey D. ;
Lindfors, Karen K. .
TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2010, 9 (01) :29-43
[7]   Can Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Replace Conventional Diagnostic Mammography Views for Screening Recalls Without Calcifications? A Comparison Study in a Simulated Clinical Setting [J].
Brandt, Kathleen R. ;
Craig, Daniel A. ;
Hoskins, Tanya L. ;
Henrichsen, Tara L. ;
Bendel, Emily C. ;
Brandt, Stephanie R. ;
Mandrekar, Jay .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2013, 200 (02) :291-298
[8]   Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis-Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI [J].
Chou, Chen-Pin ;
Lewin, John M. ;
Chiang, Chia-Ling ;
Hung, Bao-Hui ;
Yang, Tsung-Lung ;
Huang, Jer-Shyung ;
Liao, Jia-Bin ;
Pan, Huay-Ben .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2015, 84 (12) :2501-2508
[9]  
D'Orsi C.J., 2003, Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) breast imaging atlas
[10]   Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results [J].
Dromain, Clarisse ;
Thibault, Fabienne ;
Muller, Serge ;
Rimareix, Francoise ;
Delaloge, Suzette ;
Tardivon, Anne ;
Balleyguier, Corinne .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2011, 21 (03) :565-574