OBJECTIVE: Molecular breast imaging with a single-head cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) gamma camera has previously been shown to have good sensitivity for the detection of small lesions. To further improve sensitivity, we developed a dual-head molecular breast imaging system using two CZT detectors to simultaneously acquire opposing breast views and reduce lesion-to-detector distance. We determined the incremental gain in sensitivity of molecular breast imaging with dual detectors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with BI-RADS category 4 or 5 lesions < 2 cm that were identified on mammography or sonography and scheduled for biopsy underwent molecular breast imaging as follows: After injection of 740 MBq of technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) sestamibi, 10-minute craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of each breast were acquired. Blinded reviews were performed using images from both detectors 1 and 2 and images from detector 1 only (simulating a single-head system). Lesions were scored on a scale of 1-5; 2 or higher was considered positive. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients in the study, 128 cancers were confirmed in 88 patients. Averaging the results from the three blinded readers, the sensitivity of dual-head molecular breast imaging was 90% (115/128), whereas the sensitivity from review of only single-head molecular breast imaging was 80% (102/128). The sensitivity for the detection of cancers < or = 10 mm in diameter was 82% (50/61) for dual-head molecular breast imaging and 68% (41/61) for single-head molecular breast imaging. On average, 13 additional cancers were seen on dual-head images and the tumor uptake score increased by 1 or more in 60% of the identified tumors. CONCLUSION: Gains in sensitivity with the dual-head system molecular breast imaging are partially due to increased confidence in lesion detection. Molecular breast imaging can reliably detect breast lesions < 2 cm and dual-head molecular breast imaging can significantly increase sensitivity for subcentimeter lesions.
OBJECTIVE: Molecular breast imaging with a single-head cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) gamma camera has previously been shown to have good sensitivity for the detection of small lesions. To further improve sensitivity, we developed a dual-head molecular breast imaging system using two CZT detectors to simultaneously acquire opposing breast views and reduce lesion-to-detector distance. We determined the incremental gain in sensitivity of molecular breast imaging with dual detectors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with BI-RADS category 4 or 5 lesions < 2 cm that were identified on mammography or sonography and scheduled for biopsy underwent molecular breast imaging as follows: After injection of 740 MBq of technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) sestamibi, 10-minute craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of each breast were acquired. Blinded reviews were performed using images from both detectors 1 and 2 and images from detector 1 only (simulating a single-head system). Lesions were scored on a scale of 1-5; 2 or higher was considered positive. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients in the study, 128 cancers were confirmed in 88 patients. Averaging the results from the three blinded readers, the sensitivity of dual-head molecular breast imaging was 90% (115/128), whereas the sensitivity from review of only single-head molecular breast imaging was 80% (102/128). The sensitivity for the detection of cancers < or = 10 mm in diameter was 82% (50/61) for dual-head molecular breast imaging and 68% (41/61) for single-head molecular breast imaging. On average, 13 additional cancers were seen on dual-head images and the tumor uptake score increased by 1 or more in 60% of the identified tumors. CONCLUSION: Gains in sensitivity with the dual-head system molecular breast imaging are partially due to increased confidence in lesion detection. Molecular breast imaging can reliably detect breast lesions < 2 cm and dual-head molecular breast imaging can significantly increase sensitivity for subcentimeter lesions.
Authors: Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Iraj Khalkhali; Janet K Baum; Javier Villanueva-Meyer; Steven L Edell; Laurence G Hanelin; Carlos E Lugo; Raymond Taillefer; Leonard M Freeman; Charles E Neal; Alice M Scheff; James L Connolly; Stuart J Schnitt; Mary J Houlihan; John S Sampalis; Stephen B Haber Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C K Kuhl; R K Schmutzler; C C Leutner; A Kempe; E Wardelmann; A Hocke; M Maringa; U Pfeifer; D Krebs; H H Schild Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rachel F Brem; Ivan Petrovitch; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Heather Young; Christine Teal; Tricia Kelly Journal: Breast J Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Amy Lynn Conners; Carrie B Hruska; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Deborah J Rhodes; Judy C Boughey; Wendie A Berg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.236