Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri1, Craig K Abbey2, Javier E López3, Andrew M Hernandez1, Peymon Gazi1, John M Boone1, Karen K Lindfors1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center , California , USA. 2. 2 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara , California , USA. 3. 3 Internal Medicine Department, Cardiovascular Division, University of California Davis Medical Center , California , USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Karen K Lindfors; Shonket Ray; Shih-Ying Huang; Laurel A Beckett; Wayne L Monsky; John M Boone Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John M Boone; Alexander L C Kwan; J Anthony Seibert; Nikula Shah; Karen K Lindfors; Thomas R Nelson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Heribert B Bieling; Eva Wardelmann; Claudia C Leutner; Roy Koenig; Walther Kuhn; Hans H Schild Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-08-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Lee Spangler; Margarita L Zuley; Jules H Sumkin; Gordan Abrams; Marie A Ganott; Christiane Hakim; Ronald Perrin; Denise M Chough; Ratan Shah; David Gur Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: John M Boone; Kai Yang; George W Burkett; Nathan J Packard; Shih-ying Huang; Spencer Bowen; Ramsey D Badawi; Karen K Lindfors Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-02