Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience.

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 a Wilcoxon 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.

[1]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Investigation of optimal kVp settings for CT mammography using a flat-panel imager , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  Constantine Gatsonis,et al.  Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging , 2005, Cancer.

[3]  Martin P Tornai,et al.  Mammotomography with pinhole incomplete circular orbit SPECT. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  John M Lewin,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. , 2003, Radiology.

[5]  J. Boone,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. , 2001, Radiology.

[6]  J. H. Gallagher,et al.  Computed tomographic evaluation of the breast. , 1978, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Gisvold Jj,et al.  Clinical evaluation of computerized tomographic mammography. , 1977 .

[8]  J. J. Gisvold,et al.  Computed tomographic mammography (CTM). , 1979, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Ruola Ning,et al.  Cone-beam volume CT mammographic imaging: feasibility study , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[10]  C A Kelsey,et al.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. , 1998, Radiology.

[11]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[12]  S J Dwyer,et al.  Specific value of computed tomographic breast scanner (CT/M) in diagnosis of breast diseases. , 1979, Radiology.

[13]  J. H. Gallagher,et al.  Computed tomography of the breast. A preliminary report. , 1977, Radiology.

[14]  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.

[15]  R. Fimmers,et al.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  J J Gisvold,et al.  Clinical evaluation of computerized tomographic mammography. , 1977, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[17]  L. Tabár,et al.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[18]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.