A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.

Purpose To compare the diagnostic utility of an investigational optoacoustic imaging device that fuses laser optical imaging (OA) with grayscale ultrasonography (US) to grayscale US alone in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. Materials and Methods This prospective, 16-site study of 2105 women (study period: 12/21/2012 to 9/9/2015) compared Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories assigned by seven blinded independent readers to benign and malignant breast masses using OA/US versus US alone. BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 masses assessed at diagnostic US with biopsy-proven histologic findings and BI-RADS 3 masses stable at 12 months were eligible. Independent readers reviewed US images obtained with the OA/US device, assigned a probability of malignancy (POM) and BI-RADS category, and locked results. The same independent readers then reviewed OA/US images, scored OA features, and assigned OA/US POM and a BI-RADS category. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated for US and OA/US. Benign and malignant mass upgrade and downgrade rates, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were compared. Results Of 2105 consented subjects with 2191 masses, 100 subjects (103 masses) were analyzed separately as a training population and excluded. An additional 202 subjects (210 masses) were excluded due to technical failures or incomplete imaging, 72 subjects (78 masses) due to protocol deviations, and 41 subjects (43 masses) due to high-risk histologic results. Of 1690 subjects with 1757 masses (1079 [61.4%] benign and 678 [38.6%] malignant masses), OA/US downgraded 40.8% (3078/7535) of benign mass reads, with a specificity of 43.0% (3242/7538, 99% confidence interval [CI]: 40.4%, 45.7%) for OA/US versus 28.1% (2120/7543, 99% CI: 25.8%, 30.5%) for the internal US of the OA/US device. OA/US exceeded US in specificity by 14.9% (P < .0001; 99% CI: 12.9, 16.9%). Sensitivity for biopsied malignant masses was 96.0% (4553/4745, 99% CI: 94.5%, 97.0%) for OA/US and 98.6% (4680/4746, 99% CI: 97.8%, 99.1%) for US (P < .0001). The negative likelihood ratio of 0.094 for OA/US indicates a negative examination can reduce a maximum US-assigned pretest probability of 17.8% (low BI-RADS 4B) to a posttest probability of 2% (BI-RADS 3). Conclusion OA/US increases the specificity of breast mass assessment compared with the device internal grayscale US alone. Online supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2017.

[1]  S. Heywang-Köbrunner,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging: the evolution of breast imaging. , 2013, Breast.

[2]  M. Huang,et al.  Benign versus malignant breast masses: optical differentiation with US-guided optical imaging reconstruction. , 2005, Radiology.

[3]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. , 2010, Radiology.

[4]  F. M. van den Engh,et al.  Initial results of in vivo non-invasive cancer imaging in the human breast using near-infrared photoacoustics. , 2007, Optics express.

[5]  M. I. Rosa,et al.  Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[6]  S. Kanao,et al.  Photoacoustic mammography: initial clinical results , 2014, Breast Cancer.

[7]  Jan Menke Photoacoustic breast tomography prototypes with reported human applications , 2015, European Radiology.

[8]  Quing Zhu,et al.  Assessment of Functional Differences in Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions and Improvement of Diagnostic Accuracy by Using US-guided Diffuse Optical Tomography in Conjunction with Conventional US. , 2016, Radiology.

[9]  K. Valluru,et al.  Photoacoustic Imaging in Oncology: Translational Preclinical and Early Clinical Experience. , 2016, Radiology.

[10]  Robert A Kruger,et al.  Photoacoustic angiography of the breast. , 2010, Medical physics.

[11]  W. Svensson,et al.  Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. , 2012, Radiology.

[12]  D. Cicchetti Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. , 1994 .

[13]  Karel G M Moons,et al.  Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. , 2008, Radiology.

[14]  Ji Soo Choi,et al.  US-guided optical tomography: correlation with clinicopathologic variables in breast cancer. , 2013, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[15]  Q. Hu,et al.  Meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions , 2015, Acta radiologica.

[16]  Bo Wang,et al.  Advances in Clinical and Biomedical Applications of Photoacoustic Imaging. , 2010, Expert opinion on medical diagnostics.

[17]  Qingli Zhu,et al.  Detecting angiogenesis in breast tumors: comparison of color Doppler flow imaging with ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography. , 2011, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[18]  Zhengliang Xu,et al.  Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[19]  Xiao-Yan Xie,et al.  Breast Lesions: Quantitative Diagnosis Using Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography-A Systematic Review and Meta--Analysis. , 2016, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.