Dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience

Karen K Lindfors, John M Boone, Thomas R. Nelson, Kai Yang, Alexander L C Kwan, Dewitt F. Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

252 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively and intraindividually compare dedicated breast computed tomographic (CT) images with screen-film mammograms. Materials and Methods: All patient studies were performed according to protocols approved by the institutional review board and Radiation Use Committee; informed consent was obtained. A breast CT scanner prototype was used to individually scan uncompressed breasts in 10 healthy volunteers (mean age, 52.1 years) and 69 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 and 5 lesions (mean age, 54.4 years). In women with lesions, breast CT images were compared with screen-film mammograms by an experienced mammographer and ranked with a continuous scale of 1-10 (score 1, excellent lesion visualization with CT and poor visualization with mammography; score 5.5, equal visualization with both modalities; and score 10, poor visualization with CT and excellent visualization with mammography). A Wilcoxon signed rank procedure was used to test the null hypothesis that ratings were symmetric at about a score of 5.5 for the entire group and for distinguishing microcalcifications versus masses and other findings and benign versus malignant lesions and for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Women were asked to compare their comfort during CT with that during mammography on a continuous scale of 1-10. With aWilcoxon signed rank procedure, the null hypothesis that comfort ratings were symmetric about a score of 5.5 (equal comfort with CT and mammography) was tested. Results: Overall, CT was equal to mammography for visualization of breast lesions. Breast CT was significantly better than mammography for visualization of masses (P = .002); mammography outperformed CT for visualization of microcalcifications (P = .006). No significant differences between CT and mammography were seen among benign versus malignant lesions or for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Subjects found CT significantly more comfortable than mammography (P < .001). Conclusion: Some technical challenges remain, but breast CT is promising and may have potential clinical applications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)725-733
Number of pages9
JournalRadiology
Volume246
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2008

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast
Calcinosis
Research Ethics Committees
Informed Consent
Information Systems
Healthy Volunteers
Radiation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Lindfors, K. K., Boone, J. M., Nelson, T. R., Yang, K., Kwan, A. L. C., & Miller, D. F. (2008). Dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience. Radiology, 246(3), 725-733. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463070410

Dedicated breast CT : Initial clinical experience. / Lindfors, Karen K; Boone, John M; Nelson, Thomas R.; Yang, Kai; Kwan, Alexander L C; Miller, Dewitt F.

In: Radiology, Vol. 246, No. 3, 03.2008, p. 725-733.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lindfors, KK, Boone, JM, Nelson, TR, Yang, K, Kwan, ALC & Miller, DF 2008, 'Dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience', Radiology, vol. 246, no. 3, pp. 725-733. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463070410
Lindfors, Karen K ; Boone, John M ; Nelson, Thomas R. ; Yang, Kai ; Kwan, Alexander L C ; Miller, Dewitt F. / Dedicated breast CT : Initial clinical experience. In: Radiology. 2008 ; Vol. 246, No. 3. pp. 725-733.
@article{19a02e804a114080b5629faa4a47de2b,
title = "Dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience",
abstract = "Purpose: To prospectively and intraindividually compare dedicated breast computed tomographic (CT) images with screen-film mammograms. Materials and Methods: All patient studies were performed according to protocols approved by the institutional review board and Radiation Use Committee; informed consent was obtained. A breast CT scanner prototype was used to individually scan uncompressed breasts in 10 healthy volunteers (mean age, 52.1 years) and 69 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 and 5 lesions (mean age, 54.4 years). In women with lesions, breast CT images were compared with screen-film mammograms by an experienced mammographer and ranked with a continuous scale of 1-10 (score 1, excellent lesion visualization with CT and poor visualization with mammography; score 5.5, equal visualization with both modalities; and score 10, poor visualization with CT and excellent visualization with mammography). A Wilcoxon signed rank procedure was used to test the null hypothesis that ratings were symmetric at about a score of 5.5 for the entire group and for distinguishing microcalcifications versus masses and other findings and benign versus malignant lesions and for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Women were asked to compare their comfort during CT with that during mammography on a continuous scale of 1-10. With aWilcoxon signed rank procedure, the null hypothesis that comfort ratings were symmetric about a score of 5.5 (equal comfort with CT and mammography) was tested. Results: Overall, CT was equal to mammography for visualization of breast lesions. Breast CT was significantly better than mammography for visualization of masses (P = .002); mammography outperformed CT for visualization of microcalcifications (P = .006). No significant differences between CT and mammography were seen among benign versus malignant lesions or for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Subjects found CT significantly more comfortable than mammography (P < .001). Conclusion: Some technical challenges remain, but breast CT is promising and may have potential clinical applications.",
author = "Lindfors, {Karen K} and Boone, {John M} and Nelson, {Thomas R.} and Kai Yang and Kwan, {Alexander L C} and Miller, {Dewitt F.}",
year = "2008",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2463070410",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "246",
pages = "725--733",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dedicated breast CT

T2 - Initial clinical experience

AU - Lindfors, Karen K

AU - Boone, John M

AU - Nelson, Thomas R.

AU - Yang, Kai

AU - Kwan, Alexander L C

AU - Miller, Dewitt F.

PY - 2008/3

Y1 - 2008/3

N2 - Purpose: To prospectively and intraindividually compare dedicated breast computed tomographic (CT) images with screen-film mammograms. Materials and Methods: All patient studies were performed according to protocols approved by the institutional review board and Radiation Use Committee; informed consent was obtained. A breast CT scanner prototype was used to individually scan uncompressed breasts in 10 healthy volunteers (mean age, 52.1 years) and 69 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 and 5 lesions (mean age, 54.4 years). In women with lesions, breast CT images were compared with screen-film mammograms by an experienced mammographer and ranked with a continuous scale of 1-10 (score 1, excellent lesion visualization with CT and poor visualization with mammography; score 5.5, equal visualization with both modalities; and score 10, poor visualization with CT and excellent visualization with mammography). A Wilcoxon signed rank procedure was used to test the null hypothesis that ratings were symmetric at about a score of 5.5 for the entire group and for distinguishing microcalcifications versus masses and other findings and benign versus malignant lesions and for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Women were asked to compare their comfort during CT with that during mammography on a continuous scale of 1-10. With aWilcoxon signed rank procedure, the null hypothesis that comfort ratings were symmetric about a score of 5.5 (equal comfort with CT and mammography) was tested. Results: Overall, CT was equal to mammography for visualization of breast lesions. Breast CT was significantly better than mammography for visualization of masses (P = .002); mammography outperformed CT for visualization of microcalcifications (P = .006). No significant differences between CT and mammography were seen among benign versus malignant lesions or for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Subjects found CT significantly more comfortable than mammography (P < .001). Conclusion: Some technical challenges remain, but breast CT is promising and may have potential clinical applications.

AB - Purpose: To prospectively and intraindividually compare dedicated breast computed tomographic (CT) images with screen-film mammograms. Materials and Methods: All patient studies were performed according to protocols approved by the institutional review board and Radiation Use Committee; informed consent was obtained. A breast CT scanner prototype was used to individually scan uncompressed breasts in 10 healthy volunteers (mean age, 52.1 years) and 69 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 and 5 lesions (mean age, 54.4 years). In women with lesions, breast CT images were compared with screen-film mammograms by an experienced mammographer and ranked with a continuous scale of 1-10 (score 1, excellent lesion visualization with CT and poor visualization with mammography; score 5.5, equal visualization with both modalities; and score 10, poor visualization with CT and excellent visualization with mammography). A Wilcoxon signed rank procedure was used to test the null hypothesis that ratings were symmetric at about a score of 5.5 for the entire group and for distinguishing microcalcifications versus masses and other findings and benign versus malignant lesions and for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Women were asked to compare their comfort during CT with that during mammography on a continuous scale of 1-10. With aWilcoxon signed rank procedure, the null hypothesis that comfort ratings were symmetric about a score of 5.5 (equal comfort with CT and mammography) was tested. Results: Overall, CT was equal to mammography for visualization of breast lesions. Breast CT was significantly better than mammography for visualization of masses (P = .002); mammography outperformed CT for visualization of microcalcifications (P = .006). No significant differences between CT and mammography were seen among benign versus malignant lesions or for effect of breast density on lesion visualization. Subjects found CT significantly more comfortable than mammography (P < .001). Conclusion: Some technical challenges remain, but breast CT is promising and may have potential clinical applications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40949119836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40949119836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2463070410

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2463070410

M3 - Article

C2 - 18195383

AN - SCOPUS:40949119836

VL - 246

SP - 725

EP - 733

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -