Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT: Analysis of optimal acquisition time for discrimination of breast lesion malignancy.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the optimal acquisition time of contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT) for best discrimination of breast lesion malignancy and whether contrast enhancement can aid in classification of tumor histology. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study included patients with BI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions identified on mammography and/or ultrasound. All patients were examined by non-contrast (NC-CBBCT) and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (CE-CBBCT) at 2 and 3min after contrast media (CM) injection. Lesion enhancement of suspicious breast lesions was evaluated in corresponding CBBCT slices. RESULTS A total of 31 patients with 57 breast lesions, 30 malignant and 27 benign, were included. Malignant breast lesions demonstrated higher contrast enhancement than benign breast lesions at both 2min and 3min CE-CBBCT (2min: 48.17 vs. 0.3 HU, p<0.001; 3min: 57.38 vs. 15.43 HU, p<0.001). Enhancement differences between malignant and benign breast lesions were largest at 2min CE-CBBCT. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) showed highest mean contrast enhancement among malignant breast lesions (100.93 HU at 3min CE-CBBCT, p=0.0314) compared to invasive carcinoma of no special type with DCIS component (55.82 HU at 3min CE-CBBCT) and invasive ductal carcinoma (52.31 HU at 3min CE-CBBCT). CONCLUSIONS The contrast enhancement on CE-CBBCT best discriminates between malignant and benign breast lesions at 2min after CM injection. The enhancement has the potential to differentiate histopathological subtypes, with highest enhancement among malignant lesions seen for DCIS.

[1]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[2]  Yulei Jiang,et al.  BI-RADS data should not be used to estimate ROC curves. , 2010, Radiology.

[3]  Ruola Ning,et al.  Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Anthony J. Guidi,et al.  Microvessel density and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 1994, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  L E Quint,et al.  Delayed enhanced CT for differentiation of benign from malignant adrenal masses. , 1996, Radiology.

[6]  L. Happerfield,et al.  Angiogenesis and inflammation in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast , 1997, The Journal of pathology.

[7]  R. Pozzi Mucelli,et al.  Fischer’s score criteria correlating with histopathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer , 2010, La radiologia medica.

[8]  A. Bleyer,et al.  Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[10]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Dedicated breast computed tomography: the optimal cross-sectional imaging solution? , 2010, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[11]  D. Szolar,et al.  Quantitative CT evaluation of adrenal gland masses: a step forward in the differentiation between adenomas and nonadenomas? , 1997, Radiology.

[12]  C. Claussen,et al.  Breast MRI of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: sensitivity of diagnosis and influence of lesion characteristics. , 2013, European journal of radiology.

[13]  R. Kimmig,et al.  B3-lesions of the breast and cancer risk - an analysis of mammography screening patients. , 2016, Molecular and clinical oncology.

[14]  D. Conover,et al.  Evaluation of Malignant Breast Lesions in the Diagnostic Setting with Cone Beam Breast Computed Tomography (Breast CT): Feasibility Study , 2014, The breast journal.

[15]  Ruola Ning,et al.  Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography. , 2015, European journal of radiology.

[16]  S. Shousha,et al.  Lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3): what do we know? , 2016, Clinical radiology.

[17]  A. O’Connell,et al.  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 , 2012, Journal of clinical imaging science.

[18]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Index terms: Breast neoplasms Breast, MR , 2006 .

[19]  Sabee Molloi,et al.  Measurement of breast tissue composition with dual energy cone-beam computed tomography: A postmortem study. , 2013, Medical physics.

[20]  S. Plevritis,et al.  Contrast‐enhanced MRI of ductal carcinoma in situ: Characteristics of a new intensity‐modulated parametric mapping technique correlated with histopathologic findings , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[21]  Anita Nosratieh,et al.  Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[22]  Laura Cortesi,et al.  Multicenter Surveillance of Women at High Genetic Breast Cancer Risk Using Mammography, Ultrasonography, and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (the High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 Study): Final Results , 2011, Investigative radiology.

[23]  John M Boone,et al.  Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. , 2010, Radiology.

[24]  T. Helbich,et al.  Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Yao-pan Wu,et al.  The utility of breast cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasound, and digital mammography for detecting malignant breast tumors: A prospective study with 212 patients. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[26]  Uwe Fischer,et al.  Review of clinical studies and first clinical experiences with a commercially available cone-beam breast CT in Europe. , 2017, Clinical imaging.

[27]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  K. Alitalo,et al.  VEGFR-3 and its ligand VEGF-C are associated with angiogenesis in breast cancer. , 1999, The American journal of pathology.