Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the impact of breast density on the diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) in comparison to mammography for the detection of breast masses.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted from August 2015 to July 2016. Fifty-nine patients (65 breasts, 112 lesions) with BI-RADS, 5th edition 4 or 5 assessment in mammography and/or ultrasound of the breast received an additional non-contrast CBBCT. Independent double blind reading by two radiologists was performed for mammography and CBBCT imaging. Sensitivity, specificity and AUC were compared between the modalities.
Results
Breast lesions were histologically examined in 85 of 112 lesions (76%). The overall sensitivity for CBBCT (reader 1: 91%, reader 2: 88%) was higher than in mammography (both: 68%, p<0.001), and also for the high-density group (p<0.05). The specificity and AUC was higher for mammography in comparison to CBBCT (p<0.05 and p<0.001). The interobserver agreement (ICC) between the readers was 90% (95% CI: 86-93%) for mammography and 87% (95% CI: 82-91%) for CBBCT.
Conclusions
Compared with two-view mammography, non-contrast CBBCT has higher sensitivity, lower specificity, and lower AUC for breast mass detection in both high and low density breasts.
Key Points
• Overall sensitivity for non-contrast CBBCT ranged between 88%-91%.
• Sensitivity was higher for CBBCT than mammography in both density types (p<0.001).
• Specificity was higher for mammography than CBBCT in both density types (p<0.05).
• AUC was larger for mammography than CBBCT in both density types (p<0.001).
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CBBCT:
-
Cone-beam breast computed tomography
- US:
-
Ultrasound
- MRI:
-
Magnet resonance imaging
- HU:
-
Hounsfield units
- BI-RADS:
-
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System
- ACR:
-
American College of Radiology
- MHz:
-
Megahertz
- ROI:
-
Region of interest
References
Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK et al (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1784–1792
Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2003) Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 361:1405–1410
Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A et al (1985) Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1:829–832
Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S et al (2011) Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 117:714–722
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236
Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087
Assi V, Warwick J, Cuzick J, Duffy SW (2011) Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 9:33–40
Wolfe JN (1976) Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37:2486–2492
Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, Yang K, Kwan AL, Miller DF (2008) Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 246:725–733
O'Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y et al (2010) Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:496–509
O'Connell AM, Kawakyu-O'Connor D (2012) 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. J Clin Imaging Sci 2:7
Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Newell MS, D'Orsi CJ (2010) Dedicated breast computed tomography: the optimal cross-sectional imaging solution? Radiol Clin North Am 48:1043–1054
Zhao B, Zhang X, Cai W, Conover D, Ning R (2015) Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography. Eur J Radiol 84:48–53
He N, Wu YP, Kong Y et al (2016) The utility of breast cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasound, and digital mammography for detecting malignant breast tumors: A prospective study with 212 patients. Eur J Radiol 85:392–403
Sarno A, Mettivier G, Russo P (2015) Dedicated breast computed tomography: basic aspects. Med Phys 42:2786–2804
Seifert P, Conover D, Zhang Y et al (2014) Evaluation of malignant breast lesions in the diagnostic setting with cone beam breast computed tomography (Breast CT): feasibility study. Breast J 20:364–374
Shin K, Phalak K, Hamame A, Whitman GJ (2015) Interpretation of breast MRI utilizing the BI-RADS fifth edition lexicon: how are we doing and where are we headed? Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.12.001
Rao AA, Feneis J, Lalonde C, Ojeda-Fournier H (2016) A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. Radiographics 36:623–639
Wienbeck S, Lotz J, Fischer U (2016) Review of clinical studies and first clinical experiences with a commercially available cone-beam breast CT in Europe. Clin Imaging 42:50–59
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428
Lange K, Brunner E (2012) Sensitivity, specificity and ROC-curves in multiple reader diagnostic trials - a unified, nonparametric approach. Stat Methodol 9:490–500
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622
Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308
Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406
Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Ray S et al (2010) Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 256:714–723
Hendrick RE (2010) Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology 257:246–253
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the team of the Diagnostic Breast Center Göttingen, Germany for their continuous and excellent support.
The preliminary data from this study from Wienbeck S. et al. have been presented at the European Congress of Radiology in Vienna, on 2 March 2016 (Scientific Session SS 302, B-0218).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. Joachim Lotz, MD.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Funding
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Statistics and biometry
PD Dr. Antonia Zapf, PhD and Dr. Johannes Uhlig, MD MPH kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Methodology
• retrospective
• observational study
• performed at one institution
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wienbeck, S., Uhlig, J., Luftner-Nagel, S. et al. The role of cone-beam breast-CT for breast cancer detection relative to breast density. Eur Radiol 27, 5185–5195 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4911-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4911-z