Go Back
This abstract was viewed 63 times

Original research article

Dedicated Cone-beam Breast Computed Tomography and Diagnostic Mammography: Comparison of Radiation Dose, Patient Comfort, And Qualitative Review of Imaging Findings in BI-RADS 4 and 5 Lesions

Avice M O'ConnellDaniel Kawakyu-O'Connor
Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Highland Breast Imaging Center, Rochester, NY, USA
Date of Submission: 22-Nov-2011, Date of Acceptance: 13-Feb-2012, Date of Web Publication: 25-Feb-2012.
Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Avice M. O’Connell

Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Highland Breast Imaging Center, 500 Red Creek Drive, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
E-mail: avice_oconnell@urmc.rochester. edu

Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Avice M. O’Connell

Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Highland Breast Imaging Center, 500 Red Creek Drive, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
E-mail: avice_oconnell@urmc.rochester. edu

DOI: 10.4103/2156-7514.93274 Facebook Twitter Google Linkedin


Objective: This pilot study was undertaken to compare radiation dose, relative visibility/conspicuity of biopsy-proven lesions, and relative patient comfort in diagnostic mammography and dedicated cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) in Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)® 4 or 5 lesions.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six consecutive patients (37 breasts) with abnormal mammographic and/ or ultrasound categorized as BI-RADS® 4 or 5 lesions were evaluated with CBBCT prior to biopsy. Administered radiation dose was calculated for each modality. Mammograms and CBBCT images were compared side-by-side and lesion visibility/conspicuity was qualitatively scored. Histopathology of lesions was reviewed. Patients were administered a survey for qualitative evaluation of comfort between the two modalities.
Results: CBBCT dose was similar to or less than diagnostic mammography, with a mean dose of 9.4 mGy (±3.1 SD) for CBBCT vs. 16.9 mGy (±6.9 SD) for diagnostic mammography in a total of 37 imaged breasts (P<0.001). Thirty-three of 34 mammographic lesions were scored as equally or better visualized in CBBCT relative to diagnostic mammography. Characterization of high-risk lesions was excellent. Patients reported greater comfort in CBBCT imaging relative to mammography.
Conclusion: Our experience of side-by-side comparison of CBBCT and diagnostic mammography in BI-RADS® 4 and 5 breast lesions demonstrated a high degree of correlation between the two modalities across a variety of lesion types. Owing to favorable radiation dose profile, excellent visualization of lesions, and qualitative benefits including improved patient comfort, excellent field-of-view, and more anatomical evaluation of lesion margins, CBBCT offers a promising modality for diagnostic evaluation of breast lesions.
Keywords: Breast CT, Mammography, Radiation Dose

Cited in 26 Documents

  1. Hae Kyoung Jung, Cherie M. Kuzmiak, Keum Won Kim, Na Mi Choi, Hye Jeong Kim, Eun Lee Langman, Sora Yoon, Doreen Steen, Donglin Zeng and Fei Gao (2017) Potential Use of American College of Radiology BI-RADS Mammography Atlas for Reporting and Assessing Lesions Detected on Dedicated Breast CT Imaging. Academic Radiology 24(11):1395. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.06.003
  2. Avice M. O’Connell, Andrew Karellas, Srinivasan Vedantham and Daniel T. Kawakyu-O’Connor (2018) Newer Technologies in Breast Cancer Imaging: Dedicated Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 39(1):106. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2017.09.001
  3. Ann-Christin Rößler, Willi Kalender, Daniel Kolditz, Christian Steiding, Veikko Ruth, Caroline Preuss, Sandra Christina Peter, Barbara Brehm, Matthias Hammon, Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland and Evelyn Wenkel (2017) Performance of Photon-Counting Breast Computed Tomography, Digital Mammography, and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Evaluating Breast Specimens. Academic Radiology 24(2):184. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.09.017
  4. Antonio Sarno, Giovanni Mettivier and Paolo Russo (2015) Dedicated breast computed tomography: Basic aspects. Med. Phys. 42(6Part1):2786. doi: 10.1118/1.4919441
  5. Stephen J. Glick and Lynda C. Ikejimba (2018) Advances in digital and physical anthropomorphic breast phantoms for x-ray imaging. Med. Phys. 45(10):e870. doi: 10.1002/mp.13110
  6. David W. Erickson, Jered R. Wells, Gregory M. Sturgeon, Ehsan Samei, James T. Dobbins, W. Paul Segars and Joseph Y. Lo (2015) Population of 224 realistic human subject-based computational breast phantoms. Med. Phys. 43(1):23. doi: 10.1118/1.4937597
  7. Johannes Uhlig, Uwe Fischer, Alexey Surov, Joachim Lotz and Susanne Wienbeck (2018) Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT: Analysis of optimal acquisition time for discrimination of breast lesion malignancy. European Journal of Radiology 99:9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.003
  8. M. Chevalier del Rio (2013) Nuevas tecnologías en mamografía y su impacto en los valores de dosis. Radiología 55:25. doi: 10.1016/j.rx.2013.09.004
  9. Susanne Wienbeck, Johannes Uhlig, Susanne Luftner-Nagel, Antonia Zapf, Alexey Surov, Eva von Fintel, Vera Stahnke, Joachim Lotz and Uwe Fischer (2017) The role of cone-beam breast-CT for breast cancer detection relative to breast density. Eur Radiol 27(12):5185. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4911-z
  10. Min Xu, Xue Cheng, Xingyao Cheng, Xilin Lan, Shuzheng Chen and Jiansong Ji (2017) Areas of breast tissue covered in cone beam breast CT imaging. 13(3):913. doi: 10.3892/etm.2017.4092
  11. Yue Ma, Yang Cao, Aidi Liu, Lu Yin, Peng Han, Haijie Li, Xiaohua Zhang and Zhaoxiang Ye (2019) A Reliability Comparison of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Mammography: Breast Density Assessment Referring to the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas. Academic Radiology 26(6):752. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.07.023
  12. Johannes Uhlig, Annemarie Uhlig, Lorenz Biggemann, Uwe Fischer, Joachim Lotz and Susanne Wienbeck (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 29(3):1194. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5711-9
  13. Willi A. Kalender, Daniel Kolditz, Christian Steiding, Veikko Ruth, Ferdinand Lück, Ann-Christin Rößler and Evelyn Wenkel (2017) Technical feasibility proof for high-resolution low-dose photon-counting CT of the breast. Eur Radiol 27(3):1081. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4459-3
  14. Avice M. O'Connell (2012) The Evolution and Future of Dedicated Breast CT. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 23(2):131. doi: 10.1016/j.breastdis.2012.04.019
  15. Susanne Wienbeck, Joachim Lotz and Uwe Fischer (2017) Feasibility of Vacuum-Assisted Breast Cone-Beam CT–Guided Biopsy and Comparison With Prone Stereotactic Biopsy. American Journal of Roentgenology 208(5):1154. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16760
  16. Ni He, Yao-Pan Wu, Yanan Kong, Ning Lv, Zhi-Mei Huang, Sheng Li, Yue Wang, Zhi-jun Geng, Pei-Hong Wu and Wei-Dong Wei (2016) The utility of breast cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasound, and digital mammography for detecting malignant breast tumors: A prospective study with 212 patients. European Journal of Radiology 85(2):392. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.11.029
  17. Johannes Uhlig, Uwe Fischer, Lorenz Biggemann, Joachim Lotz and Susanne Wienbeck (2019) Pre- and post-contrast versus post-contrast cone-beam breast CT: can we reduce radiation exposure while maintaining diagnostic accuracy?. Eur Radiol 29(6):3141. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5854-8
  18. Susanne Wienbeck, Joachim Lotz and Uwe Fischer (2017) Review of clinical studies and first clinical experiences with a commercially available cone-beam breast CT in Europe. Clinical Imaging 42:50. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.11.011
  19. Binghui Zhao, Xiaohua Zhang, Weixing Cai, David Conover and Ruola Ning (2015) Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography. European Journal of Radiology 84(1):48. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.032
  20. Wang Zhe, Wei Cunfeng, Wang Yanfang, Zhang Xueyan, Li Mohan and Wei Long (2015) Optimization techniques of radiation dose for dedicated breast CT. . Conference Presentation in 2015 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC) 1. doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2015.7582162
  21. Georg Ruile, Anatoli Djanatliev, Christine Kriza, Florian Meier, Ines Leb, Willi A Kalender and Peter L Kolominsky-Rabas (2015) Screening for breast cancer with Breast-CT in a ProHTA simulation. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 4(6):553. doi: 10.2217/cer.15.42
  22. A. Sarno, G. Mettivier, B. Golosio, P. Oliva, G. Spandre, F. Di Lillo, C. Fedon, R. Longo and P. Russo (2016) Imaging performance of phase-contrast breast computed tomography with synchrotron radiation and a CdTe photon-counting detector. Physica Medica 32(5):681. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.04.011
  23. Hosang Jeon, Hanbean Youn, Jin Sung Kim, Jiho Nam, Jayoung Lee, Juhye Lee, Dahl Park, Wontaek Kim, Yongkan Ki, Donghyun Kim and John M. Boone (2017) Generation of polychromatic projection for dedicated breast computed tomography simulation using anthropomorphic numerical phantom. PLoS ONE 12(11):e0187242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187242
  24. Thibaut Dubreuil, Jérôme Mouly, Aïcha Ltaief-Boudrigua, Amanda Martinon, Stéphane Tilhet-Coartet, Karim Tazarourte and Jean-Baptiste Pialat (2019) Comparison of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Multislice Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Extremity Fractures. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 43(3):372. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000843
  25. Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri, Jonathan B. Hargreaves, John M. Boone and Karen K. Lindfors (2016) Dedicated Breast CT: Screening Technique of the Future. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 8(4):242. doi: 10.1007/s12609-016-0227-2
  26. Susanne Wienbeck, Uwe Fischer, Susanne Luftner-Nagel, Joachim Lotz and Johannes Uhlig (2018) Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI. Eur Radiol 28(9):3731. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5376-4

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.