Multimodal ultrasound tomography for breast imaging: a prospective study of clinical feasibility

BackgroundTo describe the clinical set-up and evaluate the feasibility of multimodal ultrasound tomography (MUT) for breast imaging.MethodsThirty-two consecutive patients referred for breast imaging and 24 healthy volunteers underwent MUT. In the 32 patients, the examination discomfort was compared to that of mammography (n = 31), handheld ultrasound (HUS) (n = 27) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n = 4) on a scale from 1 (lowest discomfort) to 10 (highest discomfort). MUT investigation time was recorded. Findings automatically detected by MUT were correlated with conventional imaging and biopsy results.ResultsBreast MUT was well tolerated by all 56 participants; 55 bilateral exams were uneventful. During one exam, the digitalisation card failed and the exam was successfully repeated within three days. Mean examination discomfort was 1.6 (range = 1–5) for MUT, 1.5 (range = 1–5) for HUS, 5.3 (range = 3–7) for MRI, and 6.3 (range = 1–10) for mammography. MUT examination time was 38 ± 6 min (mean ± standard deviation). In the patients referred for breast imaging, MUT detected four lesions and indicated malignancy in three of these cases. These findings were confirmed by additional imaging and biopsy.ConclusionMUT is feasible in a clinical context considering examination time and patient acceptance. These interesting initial diagnostic findings warrant further studies.

[1]  V. Marmarelis,et al.  Novel technology of multimodal ultrasound tomography detects breast lesions , 2013, European Radiology.

[2]  Pavel Crystal,et al.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  K. Kelly,et al.  Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts , 2009, European Radiology.

[4]  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.

[5]  V. Marmarelis,et al.  Differentiation of BIRADS-4 small breast lesions via Multimodal Ultrasound Tomography , 2015, European Radiology.

[6]  Tae-Seong Kim,et al.  Soft tissue differentiation using multiband signatures of high resolution ultrasonic transmission tomography , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  W. Berg Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. , 2004, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[8]  Dae C. Shin,et al.  Segmentation methodology for automated classification and differentiation of soft tissues in multiband images of high-resolution ultrasonic transmission tomography , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  D. Berry,et al.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[11]  W. Scott Comulada,et al.  Breast cancer detection: radiologists’ performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound , 2010, European Radiology.

[12]  Tae-Seong Kim,et al.  High-resolution ultrasound transmission tomography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  I Sechopoulos,et al.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. , 2015, Breast.

[14]  Dae C. Shin,et al.  Differentiation of Cancerous Lesions in Excised Human Breast Specimens Using Multiband Attenuation Profiles From Ultrasonic Transmission Tomography , 2008, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[15]  Vasilis Z. Marmarelis,et al.  Multiband tissue differentiation in ultrasonic transmission tomography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Radiologists' performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). , 2011, European journal of radiology.