Feasibility of Vacuum-Assisted Breast Cone-Beam CT-Guided Biopsy and Comparison With Prone Stereotactic Biopsy

Dedicated Breast CT: Getting Ready for Prime Time

Dedicated breast CT is an imaging modality that provides true 3D imaging of the breast with many advantages over current conventional breast imaging modalities. The addition of intravascular contrast increases the sensitivity of breast CT substantially. As such, there are immediate potential applications in the clinical workflow. These include using breast CT to replace much of the traditional diagnostic workup when faced with indeterminate breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced breast CT may be appropriate as a supplemental screening tool for women at high risk of breast cancer, similar to breast MRI. In addition, emerging studies are demonstrating the utility of breast CT in neoadjuvant chemotherapy tumor response monitoring as well as planning for surgical treatment options. While short exam times and fully 3D imaging in a noncompressed position are advantages of this modality, limited coverage of chest wall/axilla due to prone positioning and use of ionizing radiation are drawbacks. To date, several studies have reported on the performance characteristics of this promising modality.

Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part II. Clinical application and future outlook

Dedicated breast CT is being increasingly used for breast imaging. This technique provides images with no compression, removal of tissue overlap, rapid acquisition, and available simultaneous assessment of microcalcifications and contrast enhancement. In this second installment in a 2-part review, the current status of clinical applications and ongoing efforts to develop new imaging systems are discussed, with particular emphasis on how to achieve optimized practice including lesion detection and characterization, response to therapy monitoring, density assessment, intervention, and implant evaluation. The potential for future screening with breast CT is also addressed. KEY POINTS: • Dedicated breast CT is an emerging modality with enormous potential in the future of breast imaging by addressing numerous clinical needs from diagnosis to treatment. • Breast CT shows either noninferiority or superiority with mammography and numerical comparability to MRI after contrast administration in diagnostic statistics, demonstrates excellent performance in lesion characterization, density assessment, and intervention, and exhibits promise in implant evaluation, while potential application to breast cancer screening is still controversial. • New imaging modalities such as phase-contrast breast CT, spectral breast CT, and hybrid imaging are in the progress of R & D.

Pre- and post-contrast versus post-contrast cone-beam breast CT: can we reduce radiation exposure while maintaining diagnostic accuracy?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether post-contrast cone-beam breast CT (CBBCT) alone is comparable to the current standard of combined pre- and post-contrast CBBCT regarding diagnostic accuracy and superior regarding radiation exposure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study included 49 women (61 breasts) with median age 57.9 years and BI-RADS 4/5 lesions diagnosed on mammography/ultrasound in density type c/d breasts. Two radiologists rated post-contrast CBBCT and pre- and post-contrast CBBCT with subtraction images on the BI-RADS scale separately for calculation of inter- and intra-observer agreement and in consensus for diagnostic accuracy assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were compared via McNemar test and DeLong method, respectively. Subtraction imaging misregistration were measured from 1 (no artifacts) to 4 (artifacts with width > 4 mm).

RESULTS

A total of 100 lesion (51 malignant; 6 high risk; 43 benign) were included. AUC, sensitivity, and specificity showed no significant differences comparing post-contrast CBBCT alone versus pre- and post-contrast CBBCT (AUC 0.84 vs. 0.83, p = 0.643; sensitivity 0.89 vs. 0.85, p = 0.158; specificity 0.73 vs. 0.76, p = 0.655). Inter- and intra-observer agreement was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient ICC = 0.76, ICC = 0.83, respectively). Radiation dose was significantly lower for post-contrast CBBCT alone versus pre- and post-contrast CBBCT (median average glandular radiation dose 5.9 mGy vs. 11.7 mGy, p < 0.001). High-degree misregistrations were evident in the majority of subtraction images (level 1/2/3/4 16.9%/27.1%/16.9%/39%), in particular for bilateral exams (3.2%/29.2%/8.3%/58.3%).

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic accuracy of post-contrast CBBCT alone is comparable to pre- and post-contrast CBBCT in type c/d breasts, while yielding a significant twofold radiation dose reduction.

KEY POINTS

• The diagnostic accuracy of post-contrast CBBCT alone is comparable to dual acquisition of pre- and post-contrast CBBCT. • Acquisition of the post-contrast CBBCT scan alone reduces radiation exposure compared to pre- and post-contrast CBBCT, thus countering one of the main limitations of CBBCT. • High-degree misregistration artifacts limit the interpretation of subtraction images from pre- and post-contrast CBBCT studies.

Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To review the published evidence on cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and summarize its diagnostic accuracy for breast lesion assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL libraries. Studies were included if reporting sensitivity and specificity for discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions via breast CT. Sensitivity and specificity were jointly modeled using a bivariate approach calculating summary areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC). All analyses were separately performed for non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (NC-CBBCT, CE-CBBCT).

RESULTS

A total of 362 studies were screened, of which 6 with 559 patients were included. All studies were conducted between 2015 and 2018 and evaluated female participants. Four of six studies included dense and very dense breasts with a high proportion of microcalcifications. For NC-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.789 (95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and pooled specificity was 0.697 (95% CI: 0.471-0.851), both showing considerable significant between-study heterogeneity (I² = 89.4%, I² = 94.7%, both p < 0.001). Partial AUC for NC-CBBCT was 0.817. For CE-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.899 (95% CI: 0.785-0.956) and pooled specificity was 0.788 (95% CI: 0.709-0.85), both exhibiting non-significant moderate between-study heterogeneity (I² = 57.3%, p = 0.0527; I² = 53.1%, p = 0.0738). Partial AUC for CE-CBBCT was 0.869.

CONCLUSION

The evidence available for CBBCT tends to show superior diagnostic performance for CE-CBBCT over NC-CBBCT regarding sensitivity, specificity and partial AUC. Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CBBCT was numerically comparable to that of breast MRI with meta-analyses reporting sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.72.

KEY POINTS

• CE-CBBCT rather than NC-CBBCT should be used for assessment of breast lesions for its higher diagnostic accuracy. • CE-CBBCT diagnostic performance was comparable to published results on breast MRI, thus qualifying CE-CBBCT as a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.