| Literature DB >> 26945762 |
Michelle Heijblom1,2, Daniele Piras1, Frank M van den Engh2, Margreet van der Schaaf2, Joost M Klaase2, Wiendelt Steenbergen1, Srirang Manohar3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Photoacoustic mammography is potentially an ideal technique, however, the amount of patient data is limited. To further our understanding of the in vivo performance of the method and to guide further research and development, we imaged 33 breast malignancies using the research system - the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope (PAM).Entities:
Keywords: Breast neoplasms; Diagnostic imaging; Photoacoustic techniques; Pulsed lasers; Ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26945762 PMCID: PMC5052314 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4240-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1The Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope. (a) Aperture for breast insertion. (b) Ultrasound detector matrix. (c) Glass window. (d) Scanning system compartment. (e) Q-switched Nd-YAG laser operated at 1,064 nm with 10-ns pulses. (f) Laser safety curtain which is drawn around the instrument during the measurements. (g) Interface electronics between detector and computer. (h) Linear stage carrying detector matrix driven by hand wheel to apply mild compression to the breast. (i) Laser remote control unit. (j) Laser power supply. Image adapted from reference [29] with permission
Fig. 2Photoacoustic (PA) contrast versus breast density. There is no significant difference in PA contrast (grey, cross) between the low- and high-density breasts. There is a significant drop (*) in contrast for x-ray mammography (white, sphere) comparing the high-density to the low-density groups
Results from photoacoustic imaging
| P1 | Fig. | Lesion type | Lesion size2 (mm) | PA | PA | PA size (mm) | Co-localization x-ray/MRI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nr. | lesion appearance | contrast | |||||
| 32 | IDC | 12 | Mass | 2.6 | 16 | Good | |
| 35 |
| IDC | 26 | Mass | 2.7 | 18 | Good |
| 36 | IDC (3×) | 6, 6, 20 | Mass (3×) | 4.2, 3.1, 3.3 | 8, 8, 11 | Good | |
| 37 | IDC | 28 | Ring | 2.2 | 31 | Good | |
| 38 | IDC | 19 | Mass | 5.1 | 19 | Good | |
| 39 | IDC | 63 | Non-mass | 3.6 | 41 | Reasonable | |
| 40 | ILC | un | Non-mass | 3.7 | 45 | Poor3 | |
| 42 | IDC | un | Mass | 3.9 | 28 | Good | |
| 43 | IDC | 15 | Mass | 2.9 | 16 | Good | |
| 44 | IDC | 25 | Mass | 3.7 | 38 | Not defined | |
| 45 | Adenotype | un | Non-mass | 3.2 | 61 | Reasonable3 | |
| 47 |
| IDC | 24 | Ring | 5.5 | 24 | Good |
| 494 | LCIS | 40 | Non-mass | 3.9 | 54 | Good | |
| 52 | IDC | un | Non-mass | 2.7 | 53 | Good | |
| 53 | IDC | un | Ring | 3.3 | 46 | Good | |
| 54 | IDC | 22 | Mass | 6.4 | 18 | Reasonable5 | |
| 55 | IDC | 34 | Mass | 2.8 | 29 | Good | |
| 56 | IDC | 22 | Mass | 3.4 | 11 | Reasonable-Poor5 | |
| 58 |
| ILC | 22 | Mass | 2.3 | 19 | Good |
| 59 | IDC | 28 | Non-mass | 3.5 | 29 | Reasonable | |
| 60 | ILC | 22 | Not visible | 1.06 | 0 | n.a. | |
| 61 | IDC | un | Mass, atypical | 4.3 | 21 | Good | |
| 62 | IDC | 18 | Mass | 2.6 | 15 | Good | |
| 63 | IDC | un | Mass | 7.0 | 13 | Poor5 | |
| 65 | IDC | 18 | Mass | 2.6 | 13 | Good | |
| 66 |
| MC | 15 | Mass | 4.0 | 15 | Good |
| 67 | IDC | 13 | Mass | 5.3 | 16 | Good | |
| 68 | IDC | 14 | Mass | 2.9 | 10 | Good | |
| 70 | IDC | 19 | Mass | 3.0 | 23 | Good | |
| 72 | IDC | un | Non-mass | 2.8 | 44 | Good | |
| 73 | IDC | 25 | Multifocal mass | 2.9 | 42 | Reasonable5 |
1Internal numbering system
2The size of the lesion is estimated from histopathology post-surgery. If patients did not undergo surgery in Medisch Spectrum Twente (MST), the size is indicated as ‘unknown’ (un)
3The size of the lesion and/or the high breast density made a comparison between PA and x-ray lesion localization difficult
4An adenotype metastasis was found in one of the lymph nodes; however, the post-mastectomy specimen only revealed LCIS in the breast. The metastasis proves that there should have been an invasive component
5For these patients, the non-perfect co-localization could be attributed to the significant breast tilting during the PA measurement;
6The lesions with a contrast of ‘1’ for PA mammography were not visible in the PA imaging volume
PA photoacoustic, P patient number, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, IDC infiltrating ductal carcinoma, ILC infiltrating lobular carcinoma, LCIS lobular carcinoma in situ, MC mucinous carcinoma, n.a. not applicable, un unknown
Patient and lesion characteristics
| P1 | Age (y) | BMI | Hormonal status (week) | Type and grade of malignancy | DCIS (yes/no) | Receptor status (Er, Pr, Her2Neu) | Size of lesion2 (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 | 54 | 28.7 | Post | IDC, grade 1 | No | ++- | 12 |
| 35 | 79 | 35.6 | Post | IDC, grade 1 | No | ++- | 26 |
| 36 (3x) | 56 | 27.5 | Post | IDC, grade 1 (3×) | Yes | ++- (3×) | 6, 6, 20 |
| 37 | 61 | 25.9 | Post | IDC, grade 2 | No | +++ | 28 |
| 38 | 44 | 26.0 | Pre (3) | IDC, grade 3 | Yes | − | 19 |
| 39 | 67 | 33.2 | Post | IDC, grade 3 | No | ++- | 63 |
| 40 | 47 | 26.2 | Pre (2) | ILC | n.a. | +++ | un3,4 |
| 42 | 91 | 20.0 | Post | IDC | un | ++- | ~302 |
| 43 | 83 | 25.0 | Post | IDC, grade 2 | Yes | ++- | 15 |
| 44 | 55 | 24.5 | Post | IDC, grade 3 | Yes | --+ | 25 |
| 455 | 51 | un | Post | Adenotype | un | un | un3,4 |
| 47 | 69 | 22.5 | Post | IDC, grade 2 | No | ++- | 24 |
| 49 | 64 | 29.0 | Post | LCIS | n.a. | +-- | >40 |
| 52 | 44 | un | un | IDC | un | ++un | >603 |
| 53 | 72 | 21.3 | Post | IDC | un | +-- | >603 |
| 54 | 70 | 30.1 | Post | IDC, grade 1 | No | ++- | 22 |
| 55 | 63 | 24.8 | Post | IDC, grade 2 | No | +-- | 34 |
| 56 | 62 | 26.9 | Post | IDC, grade 3 | No | +++ | 22 |
| 58 | 65 | 27.7 | Post | ILC, grade 2 | n.a. | ++- | 22 |
| 59 | 79 | 27.1 | Post | IDC, grade 3 | No | ++- | 28 |
| 60 | 66 | 23.1 | Post | ILC, grade 1 | n.a. | ++- | 22 |
| 61 | 74 | 41.4 | Post | IDC | un | ++- | 223 |
| 62 | 32 | 18.6 | Pre (1) | IDC, grade 2 | No | ++- | 18 |
| 63 | 79 | 24.1 | Post | IDC | Un | ++- | 223 |
| 65 | 78 | un | Post | IDC, grade 1 | Yes | --+ | 18 |
| 66 | 83 | 26.6 | Post | MC, grade 2 | Yes | ++- | 15 |
| 67 | 73 | 23.8 | Post | IDC, grade 2 | Yes | ++- | 13 |
| 68 | 63 | 25.5 | Post | IDC, grade 2 | Yes | ++- | 14 |
| 70 | 63 | 29.8 | Post | IDC, grade 3 | No | ++- | 19 |
| 72 | 61 | 24.3 | Post | IDC | un | ++- | 353 |
| 73 | 50 | 28.2 | Post | IDC, grade 3 | No | ++- | 25 + 56 |
1Internal numbering system
2The size of the lesion is estimated from histopathology post-surgery or conventional imaging
3These patients did not undergo surgery in Medisch Spectrum Twente (MST), therefore the lesion size, grade and presence of DCIS are not available. If possible the lesion size (last column) was estimated from conventional imaging
4In these patients, the size of the lesion could not be estimated from conventional imaging, because of the large extension in the breast and the appearance of architectural distortion rather than mass
5In this patient the biopsy of the lesion was inconclusive, but biopsies lymph node biopsies showed metastases from an adenotype carcinoma. The patient left to go to a different hospital for further diagnosis and treatment and was lost for follow-up
6In this patient, in addition to the 25 mm abnormality, a second, 5-mm focus of the same type of malignancy was found in the histopathology specimen. There were no invasive or in situ components present in between these lesions
P patient number, BMI body mass index, DCIS ductal carcinoma in situ, IDC infiltrating ductal carcinoma, ILC infiltrating lobular carcinoma, LCIS lobular carcinoma in situ, MC mucinous carcinoma, un unknown, n.a. not applicable
Fig. 4Four representative photoacoustic imaging results. Left: Left cranio-caudal (CC) x-ray mammogram; middle: Left CC x-ray mammogram with maximum intensity projection (MIP) of the photoacoustic (PA) mammography-identified lesion overlaid; right: detailed 3D representation of the lesion of interest. (a-c) This infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC, grade 1) of 26 mm in a 79-year-old patient presents as a high-contrast mass appearance of 18 mm in the PA volume. The size underestimation is most likely the consequence of the poor positioning of the lesion at the edge of the detector. The shift in lesion location between the x-ray and PA images is most likely the consequence of the breast being slightly tilted following detector movement to immobilize the breast against the glass window prior to the measurement. (d-f) This infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC, grade 2) of 24 mm in a 69-year-old patient presents as a ring (diameter 24 mm) in the PA volume. The ring appearance is hypothesized to be partly the consequence of a higher vascular density at the lesions border as compared to its centre [32]. Since x-ray mammography relies on a different contrast mechanism, this ring appearance does not necessarily appear in the x-ray images. (g-i) This mucinous carcinoma (MC, grade 2) of 15 mm detected in an 83-year-old patient presents as a lobed mass of 15 mm in the PA images. (j–l) This infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC, grade 2) of 22 mm in a 65-year-old patient presents as an irregularly shaped mass of 19 mm in PA images. The location of the lesion in the PA volume can be perfectly co-localized with the location of the lesion on the x-ray mammogram. Even at depths of more than 20 mm, the lesion can be visualized with good contrast and a rather reliable (although slightly underestimated) size
Results from conventional imaging
| P1 | BI-RADS density | x-ray contrast | PA contrast | Size x-ray (mm) (% deviation)2 | Size US (mm) (% deviation)2 | Size MRI (mm) (% deviation)2 | Size PA (mm) (% deviation) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 | 1 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 12 (0 %) | 11 (−8 %) | 16 (+33 %) | |
| 35 | 1 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 24 (−8 %) | 25 (−4 %) | 18 (−31 %) | |
| 36 | 2 | 3.1, 2.0, 1.03 | 4.2, 3.1, 3.3 | 6, 10, 0 (0, +66, −100 %) | 6, 8, 0 (0, +33, −100 %) | 8, 8, 11 (+33, +33,−45 %) | |
| 37 | 3 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 35 (+25 % | 36 (+29 %) | 31 (+11 %) | |
| 38 | 3 | 1.0 | 5.1 | 0 (−100 %) | 21 (+11 %) | 22 (+16 %) | 19 (0 %) |
| 39 | 2 | 5.6 | 3.6 | 50 (−21 %) | 50 (−21 %) | 41 (−35 %) | |
| 404 | 4 | np5 | 3.7 | np | np | np | 45 |
| 424 | 2 | 1.5 | 3.9 | 30 | np | 28 | |
| 43 | 1 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 15 (0 %) | 15 (0 %) | 16 (+7 %) | |
| 44 | 2 | 1.0 | 3.7 | 0 (−100 %) | 30 (+20 %) | 38 (+52 %) | |
| 454 | 3 | np5 | 3.2 | np | np | 61 | |
| 47 | 2 | 6.6 | 5.5 | 25 (+4 %) | 29 (+21 %) | 24 (0 %) | |
| 496 | 2 | np5 | 3.9 | 15 | 0 | 20–50 | 54 |
| 524 | 3 | 1.3 | 2.7 | 60 | 42 | 70 | 53 |
| 534 | 2 | 6.6 | 3.3 | 65 | 50 | 46 | |
| 54 | 1 | 2.0 | 6.4 | 18 (−18 %) | 13 (−41 %) | 18 (−18 %) | |
| 55 | 1 | 6.8 | 2.8 | 20 (−41 %) | 23 (−32 %) | 50 (+47 %) | 29 (−15 %) |
| 56 | 3 | 1.3 | 3.4 | np3 | 34 (+54 %) | 32 (+45 %) | 11(−50 %) |
| 58 | 1 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 20 (−9 %) | 25 (+14 %) | 55 (+150 % | 19 (−14 %) |
| 59 | 2 | 2.3 | 3.5 | 35 (+25 %) | 30 (+7 %) | 29(+4 %) | |
| 60 | 1 | 3.5 | 1.0 | np5 | 25 (+14 %) | 67 (+204 %) | 0 (−100 %) |
| 614 | 1 | 6.4 | 4.3 | 16 | 10 | 20 | 21 |
| 62 | 3 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 20 (+11 %) | 20 (+11 %) | 19 (+6 %) | 15(−17 %) |
| 634 | 1 | 2.7 | 7.0 | 22 | 21 | 13 | |
| 65 | 2 | 1.07 | 2.6 | 14 (−22 %) | 18 (0 %) | 13 (−28 %) | |
| 66 | 2 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 20 (+33 %) | 16 (+7 %) | 15 (0 %) | |
| 67 | 1 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 18 (+38 %) | 13 (0 %) | 15 (+15 %) | 16 (+23 %) |
| 68 | 3 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 15 (+7 %) | 15 (+7 %) | 10 (−29 %) | |
| 70 | 2 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 25 (+32 %) | 20 (+5 %) | 30 (+58 %) | 23 (+21 %) |
| 724 | 2 | 4.3 | 2.8 | 35 | 36 | 50 | 44 |
| 73 | 2 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 49 (+96 %) | 26 (+4 %) | 35 (+40 %) | 42 (+68 %) |
1Internal numbering system
2The percentage size deviation is calculated according to Formula 3. For lesions which were correctly positioned, but invisible, the lesion size was defined as 0 mm (100 % size deviation)
3Lesions with a contrast of ‘1’ for either x-ray mammography or PA imaging, were occult on the specific images
4These patients did not go for surgery at Medisch Spectrum Twente (MST), mostly because of the treatment by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore post-surgical histopathological sizes could not be obtained
5In these patients, the contrast and/or size of the lesion could not fully be estimated on conventional imaging, because of the appearance of architectural distortion rather than mass
6In this patient, an adenotype metastasis was found in one of the lymph nodes; however, the post-mastectomy specimen only revealed lobular carcinoma in situ in this breast. The metastasis proves that there should have been an invasive component. The size given here is the one of the in situ component. These are not taken into account in the estimation of the average size over- or underestimation for the different imaging modalities
7The lesion was visible in x-ray mammography as a radio-opaque abnormality of approximately 14 mm, associated with microcalcifications, hence the contrast was approaching ‘1’
PA photoacoustic, P patient number, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, US ultrasound, n.a. not applicable, n.p. not possible, un unknown
Fig. 3Tumour grade versus contrast on photoacoustic (PA) images. There is no significant difference between the groups