Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography

Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri, Craig K. Abbey, Javier E Lopez, Andrew M. Hernandez, Peymon Gazi, John M Boone, Karen K Lindfors

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalThe British journal of radiology
Volume92
Issue number1097
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Biopsy
Calcinosis
Research Ethics Committees
Diagnostic Imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{a807ebf56a5140fdb4c114f17f305e6c,
title = "Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography",
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.",
author = "Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri and Abbey, {Craig K.} and Lopez, {Javier E} and Hernandez, {Andrew M.} and Peymon Gazi and Boone, {John M} and Lindfors, {Karen K}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1259/bjr.20181034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
journal = "British Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0007-1285",
publisher = "British Institute of Radiology",
number = "1097",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography

AU - Aminololama-Shakeri, Shadi

AU - Abbey, Craig K.

AU - Lopez, Javier E

AU - Hernandez, Andrew M.

AU - Gazi, Peymon

AU - Boone, John M

AU - Lindfors, Karen K

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065003321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065003321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20181034

DO - 10.1259/bjr.20181034

M3 - Article

VL - 92

JO - British Journal of Radiology

JF - British Journal of Radiology

SN - 0007-1285

IS - 1097

ER -