Literature DB >> 21978062

Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.

Nicholas A Shkumat1, Adam Springer, Christopher M Walker, Eric M Rohren, Wei T Yang, Beatriz E Adrada, Elsa Arribas, Selin Carkaci, Hubert H Chuang, Lumarie Santiago, Osama R Mawlawi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A new positron emission mammography (PEM) device (PEM Flex Solo II, Naviscan Inc., San Diego, CA) has recently been introduced and its performance characteristics have been documented. However, no systematic assessment of its limit of detectability has been evaluated. The aim of this work is to investigate the limit of detectability of this new PEM system using a novel, customized breast phantom.
METHODS: Two sets of F-18 infused gelatin breast phantoms of varying thicknesses (2, 4, 6, and 8 cm) were constructed with and without (blank) small, shell-less contrast objects (2 mm thick disks) of varying diameters (3-14.5 mm) [volumes: 0.15-3.3 cc] and activity concentration to background ratio (ACR) (2.7-58). For the phantom set with contrast objects, the disks were placed centrally inside the phantoms and both phantom sets were imaged for a period of 10 min on the PEM device. In addition, scans for the 2 and 6 cm phantoms were repeated at different times (0, 90, and 150 min) post phantom construction to evaluate the impact of total activity concentration (count density) on lesion detectability. Each object from each phantom scan was then segmented and placed randomly in a corresponding blank phantom image. The resulting individual images were presented blindly to seven physician observers (two nuclear medicine and five breast imaging radiologists) and scored in a binary fashion (1-correctly identified object, 0-incorrect). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of lesion detectability were calculated and plots of sensitivity versus ACR and lesion diameters for different phantom thicknesses and count density were generated.
RESULTS: The overall (mean) detection sensitivity across all variables was 0.68 (95% CI: [0.64, 0.72]) with a corresponding specificity of 0.93 [0.87, 0.98], and diagnostic accuracy of 0.72 [0.70, 0.75]. The smallest detectable object varied strongly as a function of ACR, as sensitivity ranged from 0.36 [0.29, 0.44] for the smallest lesion size (3 mm) to 0.80 [0.75, 0.84] for the largest (14.5 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: The detectability performance of this PEM system demonstrated its ability to resolve small objects with low activity concentration ratios which may assist in the identification of early stage breast cancer. The results of this investigation can be used to correlate lesion detectability with tumor size, ACR, count rate, and breast thickness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21978062      PMCID: PMC5148033          DOI: 10.1118/1.3627149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  33 in total

Review 1.  A meta-analysis of scintimammography: an evidence-based approach to its clinical utility.

Authors:  Rahain Hussain; John R Buscombe
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.690

2.  False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors.

Authors:  C Boetes; S P Strijk; R Holland; J O Barentsz; R F Van Der Sluis; J H Ruijs
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Feasibility study for positron emission mammography.

Authors:  C J Thompson; K Murthy; I N Weinberg; F Mako
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Role of MRI in screening women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Breast-specific gamma imaging with 99mTc-Sestamibi and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer--a comparative study.

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

7.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 8.  Positron emission tomography in diagnosis and management of invasive breast cancer: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Dafang Wu; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Invasive lobular carcinoma: detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging.

Authors:  Rachel F Brem; Marina Ioffe; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Kristen G Yost; Jean M Weigert; Margaret L Bertrand; Lillian H Stern
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  7 in total

1.  Quantification with a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  Spencer L Bowen; Andrea Ferrero; Ramsey D Badawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Clinical utility of positron emission mammography.

Authors:  Shannon B Glass; Zeeshan A Shah
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2013-07

3.  Using compressive sensing to recover images from PET scanners with partial detector rings.

Authors:  SeyyedMajid Valiollahzadeh; John W Clark; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Dictionary learning for data recovery in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  SeyyedMajid Valiollahzadeh; John W Clark; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Correlation of PUV and SUV in the extremities while using PEM as a high-resolution positron emission scanner.

Authors:  Sania Rahim; Osama Mawlawi; Patricia Fox; Shree Taylor; Richelle Millican; Nancy M Swanston; J Elliott Brown; Eric M Rohren
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Diagnostic performance of a novel high-resolution dedicated axillary PET system in the assessment of regional nodal spread of disease in early breast cancer.

Authors:  Jingyi Cheng; Junjie Li; Guangyu Liu; Ruohong Shui; Sheng Chen; Benlong Yang; Zhimin Shao
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02

7.  Highly sensitive detection of cancer cells using femtosecond dual-wavelength near-IR two-photon imaging.

Authors:  Jean R Starkey; Nikolay S Makarov; Mikhail Drobizhev; Aleksander Rebane
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.732

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.