1
|
Sharma V, Awate SP. Adversarial EM for variational deep learning: Application to semi-supervised image quality enhancement in low-dose PET and low-dose CT. Med Image Anal 2024; 97:103291. [PMID: 39121545 DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2024.103291] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2022] [Revised: 07/23/2024] [Accepted: 07/25/2024] [Indexed: 08/12/2024]
Abstract
In positron emission tomography (PET) and X-ray computed tomography (CT), reducing radiation dose can cause significant degradation in image quality. For image quality enhancement in low-dose PET and CT, we propose a novel theoretical adversarial and variational deep neural network (DNN) framework relying on expectation maximization (EM) based learning, termed adversarial EM (AdvEM). AdvEM proposes an encoder-decoder architecture with a multiscale latent space, and generalized-Gaussian models enabling datum-specific robust statistical modeling in latent space and image space. The model robustness is further enhanced by including adversarial learning in the training protocol. Unlike typical variational-DNN learning, AdvEM proposes latent-space sampling from the posterior distribution, and uses a Metropolis-Hastings scheme. Unlike existing schemes for PET or CT image enhancement which train using pairs of low-dose images with their corresponding normal-dose versions, we propose a semi-supervised AdvEM (ssAdvEM) framework that enables learning using a small number of normal-dose images. AdvEM and ssAdvEM enable per-pixel uncertainty estimates for their outputs. Empirical analyses on real-world PET and CT data involving many baselines, out-of-distribution data, and ablation studies show the benefits of the proposed framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vatsala Sharma
- Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) Department, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, Mumbai, India.
| | - Suyash P Awate
- Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) Department, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ko A, Vo AM, Miller N, Liang A, Baumbach M, Riley Argue J, Manche N, Gonzalez L, Austin N, Carver P, Procell J, Elzein H, Pan M, Zeidan N, Kasper W, Speer S, Liang Y, Pettus BJ. The Use of Breast-specific Gamma Imaging as a Low-Cost Problem-Solving Strategy for Avoiding Biopsies in Patients With Inconclusive Imaging Findings on Mammography and Ultrasonography. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2024; 6:502-512. [PMID: 39162574 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbae040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical performance and financial costs of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) as a biopsy-reducing problem-solving strategy in patients with inconclusive diagnostic imaging findings. METHODS A retrospective analysis of all patients for whom BSGI was utilized for inconclusive imaging findings following complete diagnostic mammographic and sonographic evaluation between January 2013 and December 2018 was performed. Positive BSGI findings were correlated and biopsied with either US or stereotactic technique with confirmation by clip location and pathology. After a negative BSGI result, patients were followed for a minimum of 24 months or considered lost to follow-up and excluded (22 patients). Results of further imaging studies, biopsies, and pathology results were analyzed. Net savings of avoided biopsies were calculated based on average Medicare charges. RESULTS Four hundred and forty female patients from 30 to 95 years (mean 55 years) of age were included in our study. BSGI demonstrated a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.4% (314/319) and a positive predictive value for biopsy of 35.5% (43/121). The overall sensitivity was 89.6% (43/48), and the specificity was 80.1% (314/392). In total, 78 false positive but only 5 false negative BSGI findings were identified. Six hundred and twenty-one inconclusive imaging findings were analyzed with BSGI and a total of 309 biopsies were avoided. Estimated net financial savings from avoided biopsies were $646 897. CONCLUSION In the management of patients with inconclusive imaging findings on mammography or ultrasonography, BSGI is a problem-solving imaging modality with high NPV that helps avoid costs of image-guided biopsies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Ko
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
| | - Alexander M Vo
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA
| | - Nathaniel Miller
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
| | - Annie Liang
- Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Maia Baumbach
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jay Riley Argue
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Nathaniel Manche
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Luis Gonzalez
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Nicholas Austin
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Philip Carver
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Joseph Procell
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Imaging, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Hassan Elzein
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Margaret Pan
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Nadine Zeidan
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - William Kasper
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Radiology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Samuel Speer
- Department of Medical Education, Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA, USA
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Yizhi Liang
- Peninsula Radiological Associates, Newport News, VA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hruska CB, Gray LR, Jenkins SM, Block EA, Hunt KN, Conners AL, Zingula SN, O'Connor MK, Rhodes DJ. A Survey of Patient Experience During Molecular Breast Imaging. J Nucl Med Technol 2024; 52:107-114. [PMID: 38839120 DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.123.266856] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2023] [Revised: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 06/07/2024] Open
Abstract
Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is one of several options available to patients seeking supplemental screening due to mammographically dense breasts. Patient experience during MBI may influence willingness to undergo the test but has yet to be formally assessed. We aimed to assess patient comfort level during MBI, to compare MBI comfort with mammography comfort, to identify factors associated with MBI discomfort, and to evaluate patients' willingness to return for future MBI. Methods: A 10-question survey was sent by e-mail to patients undergoing MBI between August and December 2022 to obtain quantitative assessments and qualitative opinions about MBI. Results: Of 561 invited patients, 209 (37%) completed the survey and provided study consent. Their average age was 60.1 y (range, 40-81 y). Of the 209 responders, 202 (97%) were presenting for screening MBI, 195 (94%) had dense breasts, and 46 (22%) had a personal history of breast cancer. The average rating of MBI comfort was 2.9 (SD, 1.5; median, 3.0) on a 7-point scale (1 indicating extremely comfortable and 7 indicating extremely uncomfortable). The rating distribution was as follows: 140 (67%) comfortable (rating, 1-3); 24 (12%) neither comfortable nor uncomfortable (rating, 4); and 45 (22%) uncomfortable (rating, 5 or 6). No responders gave a 7 rating. The most frequently mentioned sources of discomfort included breast compression (n = 16), back or neck discomfort (n = 14), and maintaining position during the examination (n = 14). MBI comfort was associated with responder age (74% ≥55 y old were comfortable, versus 53% <55 y old [P = 0.003]) and history of MBI (71% with prior MBI were comfortable, versus 61% having a first MBI [P = 0.006]). Of 208 responders with a prior mammogram, 148 (71%) said MBI is more comfortable than mammography (a significant majority [P < 0.001]). Of 202 responders to the question of whether they were willing to return for a future MBI, 196 (97%) were willing. A notable factor in positive patient experience was interaction with the MBI nuclear medicine technologist. Conclusion: Most responders thought MBI to be a comfortable examination and more comfortable than mammography. Patient experience during MBI may be improved by ensuring back support and soliciting patient feedback at the time of positioning and throughout the examination. Methods under study to reduce imaging time may be most important for improving patient experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lacey R Gray
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sarah M Jenkins
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Emily A Block
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Katie N Hunt
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Deborah J Rhodes
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut; and
- Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hunt KN, Conners AL, Gray L, Hruska CB, O’Connor MK. Molecular Breast Imaging Biopsy with a Dual-Detector System. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2024; 6:e230186. [PMID: 38847615 PMCID: PMC11287224 DOI: 10.1148/rycan.230186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2023] [Revised: 03/27/2024] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 06/13/2024]
Abstract
Purpose To develop a molecular breast imaging (MBI)-guided biopsy system using dual-detector MBI and to perform initial testing in participants. Materials and Methods The Stereo Navigator MBI Accessory biopsy system comprises a lower detector, upper fenestrated compression paddle, and upper detector. The upper detector retracts, allowing craniocaudal, oblique, or medial or lateral biopsy approaches. The compression paddle allows insertion of a needle guide and needle. Lesion depth is calculated by triangulation of lesion location on the upper detector at 0° and 15° and relative lesion activity on upper and lower detectors. In a prospective study (July 2022-June 2023), participants with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 2, 3, 4, or 5 breast lesions underwent MBI-guided biopsy. After injection of 740 MBq technetium 99m sestamibi, craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique MBI (2-minute acquisition per view) confirmed lesion visualization. A region of interest over the lesion permitted depth calculation in the system software. Upper detector retraction allowed biopsy device placement. Specimen images were obtained on the retracted upper detector, confirming sampling of the target. Results Of 21 participants enrolled (mean age, 50.6 years ± 10.1 [SD]; 21 [100%] women), 17 underwent MBI-guided biopsy with concordant pathology. No lesion was observed at the time of biopsy in four participants. Average lesion size was 17 mm (range, 6-38 mm). Average procedure time, including preprocedure imaging, was 55 minutes ± 13 (range, 38-90 minutes). Pathology results included invasive ductal carcinoma (n = 1), fibroadenoma (n = 4), pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (n = 6), and fibrocystic changes (n = 6). Conclusion MBI-guided biopsy using a dual-head system with retractable upper detector head was feasible, well tolerated, and efficient. Keywords: Breast Biopsy, Molecular Breast Imaging, Image-guided Biopsy, Molecular Breast Imaging-guided Biopsy, Breast Cancer Clinical trial registration no. NCT06058650 © RSNA, 2024.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie N. Hunt
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW,
Rochester, MN 55905
| | - Amy Lynn Conners
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW,
Rochester, MN 55905
| | - Lacey Gray
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW,
Rochester, MN 55905
| | - Carrie B. Hruska
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW,
Rochester, MN 55905
| | - Michael K. O’Connor
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW,
Rochester, MN 55905
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Patel MM, Adrada BE, Fowler AM, Rauch GM. Molecular Breast Imaging and Positron Emission Mammography. PET Clin 2023; 18:487-501. [PMID: 37258343 DOI: 10.1016/j.cpet.2023.04.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
There is growing interest in application of functional imaging modalities for adjunct breast imaging due to their unique ability to evaluate molecular/pathophysiologic changes, not visible by standard anatomic breast imaging. This has led to increased use of nuclear medicine dedicated breast-specific single photon and coincidence imaging systems for multiple indications, such as supplemental screening, staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment, diagnosis of local disease recurrence in the breast, and problem solving. Studies show that these systems maybe especially useful for specific subsets of patients, not well served by available anatomic breast imaging modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miral M Patel
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, CPB5.3208, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| | - Beatriz Elena Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, CPB5.3208, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Amy M Fowler
- Department of Radiology, Section of Breast Imaging and Intervention, University of Wisconsin - Madison, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77030, USA; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Lee CS, Destounis SV. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 2023; 20:902-914. [PMID: 37150275 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 67.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2023] [Revised: 03/26/2023] [Accepted: 04/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Debra L Monticciolo
- Division Chief, Breast Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
| | - Mary S Newell
- Interim Division Chief, Breast Imaging, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Linda Moy
- Associate Chair for Faculty Mentoring, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York; Editor-in-Chief, Radiology
| | - Cindy S Lee
- New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Stamatia V Destounis
- Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, Rochester, New York; Chair, ACR Commission on Breast Imaging
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Smith KA, Hunt KN, Rauch GM, Fowler AM. Molecular Breast Imaging in the Screening Setting. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2023; 5:240-247. [PMID: 38416886 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbad011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Indexed: 03/01/2024]
Abstract
Early detection of breast cancer through screening mammography saves lives. However, the sensitivity of mammography for breast cancer detection is reduced in women with dense breast tissue. Imaging modalities for supplemental breast cancer screening include MRI, whole breast US, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging (MBI). Molecular breast imaging with 99mTc-sestamibi is a functional imaging test to identify metabolically active areas in the breast with positioning analogous to mammography. Since 2011, there have been six large, published studies of screening MBI as a supplement to mammography involving over 6000 women from four different institutions. A multicenter, prospective clinical trial of 3000 women comparing breast cancer detection using screening digital breast tomosynthesis alone or in combination with MBI recently completed enrollment. This review focuses on the current evidence of MBI use for supplemental breast cancer screening, the strengths and limitations of MBI, and recent technological advances.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Katie N Hunt
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiology, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Breast Imaging, Houston, TX, USA
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Abdominal Imaging, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy M Fowler
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Radiology, Madison, WI, USA
- University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medical Physics, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pereslucha AM, Wenger DM, Morris MF, Aydi ZB. Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities with Special Focus on Pathology Concordance. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11:healthcare11050746. [PMID: 36900751 PMCID: PMC10000992 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11050746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2022] [Revised: 02/26/2023] [Accepted: 03/01/2023] [Indexed: 03/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer. It is characterized by a unique growth pattern making it difficult to detect on conventional breast imaging. ILC can be multicentric, multifocal, and bilateral, with a high likelihood of incomplete excision after breast-conserving surgery. We reviewed the conventional as well as newly emerging imaging modalities for detecting and determining the extent of ILC- and compared the main advantages of MRI vs. contrast-enhanced mammogram (CEM). Our review of the literature finds that MRI and CEM clearly surpass conventional breast imaging in terms of sensitivity, specificity, ipsilateral and contralateral cancer detection, concordance, and estimation of tumor size for ILC. Both MRI and CEM have each been shown to enhance surgical outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed ILC that had one of these imaging modalities added to their preoperative workup.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alicia M Pereslucha
- Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
| | - Danielle M Wenger
- College of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
| | - Michael F Morris
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
- Department of Radiology, Banner University Medical Center-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
| | - Zeynep Bostanci Aydi
- Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Maimone S, Morozov AP, Letter HP, Robinson KA, Wasserman MC, Li Z, Maxwell RW. Abbreviated Molecular Breast Imaging: Feasibility and Future Considerations. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2022; 4:590-599. [PMID: 38416994 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbac060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 03/01/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a supplemental screening modality consistently demonstrating incremental cancer detection over mammography alone; however, its lengthy duration may limit widespread utilization. The study purpose was to assess feasibility of an abbreviated MBI protocol, providing readers with mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections only and assessing performance in lesion detection and localization. METHODS Retrospective IRB-exempt blinded reader study administered to 5 fellowship-trained breast imaging radiologists. Independent reads performed for 124 screening MBI cases, half abnormal and half negative/normal. Readers determined whether an abnormality was present, side of abnormality, and location of abnormality (medial/lateral). Abnormal cases had confirmatory biopsy or surgical pathology; normal cases had imaging follow-up ensuring true negative results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess performance. A false negative result indicated that a reader failed to detect abnormal uptake; a false positive result indicated a reader incorrectly called an abnormality for a negative case. Tests for association included chi-square, Fisher-exact, and analysis of variance. RESULTS Mean reader performance for detecting abnormal uptake: sensitivity 96.8%, specificity 98.7%, PPV 98.8%, and NPV 96.9%. Accuracy in localizing lesions to the medial or lateral breast was 100%. There were no associations in reader performance with reader experience, reader technique, lesion morphology, or lesion pathology. Median lesion size was 1.0 cm (range: 0.4-8.0 cm). All readers correctly identified 97.7% (42/43) of lesions with malignant or elevated risk pathology. CONCLUSION An abbreviated MBI protocol (MLO images only) maintained high accuracy in lesion detection and localization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Santo Maimone
- Mayo Clinic Florida, Department of Radiology, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Andrey P Morozov
- Mayo Clinic Florida, Department of Radiology, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Haley P Letter
- Mayo Clinic Florida, Department of Radiology, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | | | | | - Zhuo Li
- Mayo Clinic Florida, Department of Biostatistics, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Robert W Maxwell
- Mayo Clinic Florida, Department of Radiology, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Downstream imaging following abnormal molecular breast imaging, lessons learned and suggestions for success. Clin Imaging 2022; 92:44-51. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2022] [Revised: 09/16/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
11
|
Covington MF, Parent EE, Dibble EH, Rauch GM, Fowler AM. Advances and Future Directions in Molecular Breast Imaging. J Nucl Med 2022; 63:17-21. [PMID: 34887334 PMCID: PMC8717200 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.261988] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Revised: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Molecular breast imaging (MBI) using 99mTc-sestamibi has advanced rapidly over the past decade. Technical advances allow lower-dose, higher-resolution imaging and biopsy capability. MBI can be used for supplemental breast cancer screening with mammography for women with dense breasts, as well as to assess neoadjuvant therapy response, evaluate disease extent, and predict breast cancer risk. This article highlights the current state of the art and future directions in MBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew F Covington
- Center for Quantitative Cancer Imaging, Huntsman Cancer Institute and University of Utah Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah;
| | | | - Elizabeth H Dibble
- Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University/Rhode Island Hospital Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Departments of Abdominal and Breast Imaging, Houston, Texas; and
| | - Amy M Fowler
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Departments of Radiology and Medical Physics and the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hruska CB. Updates in Molecular Breast Imaging. Semin Roentgenol 2021; 57:134-138. [PMID: 35523526 PMCID: PMC9077005 DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2021.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2021] [Accepted: 12/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a nuclear medicine study performed with dedicated gamma camera systems optimized to image the uptake of Tc-99m sestamibi in the breast. MBI provides a relatively low-cost and simple functional breast imaging method that can identify breast cancers obscured by dense fibroglandular tissue on mammography. Recent studies have also found that background levels of uptake in benign dense tissue may provide breast cancer risk information. This article discusses the latest updates in MBI technology, recent evidence supporting its clinical use, and work in progress that may aid in wider adoption of MBI.
Collapse
|
13
|
Vegunta S, Kling JM, Patel BK. Supplemental Cancer Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: Guidance for Health Care Professionals. Mayo Clin Proc 2021; 96:2891-2904. [PMID: 34686363 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2020] [Revised: 05/20/2021] [Accepted: 06/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Mammography is the standard for breast cancer screening. The sensitivity of mammography in identifying breast cancer, however, is reduced for women with dense breasts. Thirty-eight states have passed laws requiring that all women be notified of breast tissue density results in their mammogram report. The notification includes a statement that differs by state, encouraging women to discuss supplemental screening options with their health care professionals (HCPs). Several supplemental screening tests are available for women with dense breast tissue, but no established guidelines exist to direct HCPs in their recommendation of preferred supplemental screening test. Tailored screening, which takes into consideration the patient's mammographic breast density and lifetime breast cancer risk, can guide breast cancer screening strategies that are more comprehensive. This review describes the benefits and limitations of the various available supplemental screening tests to guide HCPs and patients in choosing the appropriate breast cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suneela Vegunta
- Division of Women's Health Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.
| | - Juliana M Kling
- Division of Women's Health Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - Bhavika K Patel
- Division of Breast Imaging, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Gilbert FJ, Hickman SE, Baxter GC, Allajbeu I, James J, Caraco C, Vinnicombe S. Opportunities in cancer imaging: risk-adapted breast imaging in screening. Clin Radiol 2021; 76:763-773. [PMID: 33820637 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2021.02.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
In the UK, women between 50-70 years are invited for 3-yearly mammography screening irrespective of their likelihood of developing breast cancer. The only risk adaption is for women with >30% lifetime risk who are offered annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography, and annual mammography for some moderate-risk women. Using questionnaires, breast density, and polygenic risk scores, it is possible to stratify the population into the lowest 20% risk, who will develop <4% of cancers and the top 4%, who will develop 18% of cancers. Mammography is a good screening test but has low sensitivity of 60% in the 9% of women with the highest category of breast density (BIRADS D) who have a 2.5- to fourfold breast cancer risk. There is evidence that adding ultrasound to the screening mammogram can increase the cancer detection rate and reduce advanced stage interval and next round cancers. Similarly, alternative tests such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) or abbreviated MRI (ABB-MRI) are much more effective in detecting cancer in women with dense breasts. Scintimammography has been shown to be a viable alternative for dense breasts or for follow-up in those with a personal history of breast cancer and scarring as result of treatment. For supplemental screening to be worthwhile in these women, new technologies need to reduce the number of stage II cancers and be cost effective when tested in large scale trials. This article reviews the evidence for supplemental imaging and examines whether a risk-stratified approach is feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F J Gilbert
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 218, Level 5, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK; Department of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
| | - S E Hickman
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 218, Level 5, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - G C Baxter
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 218, Level 5, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - I Allajbeu
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 218, Level 5, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK; Department of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - J James
- Nottingham Breast Institute, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
| | - C Caraco
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 218, Level 5, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - S Vinnicombe
- Thirlestaine Breast Centre, Cheltenham, UK; Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hunt KN. Molecular Breast Imaging: A Scientific Review. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2021; 3:416-426. [PMID: 38424795 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbab039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2020] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a nuclear medicine technique that has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Technical advances have allowed reductions in administered doses to the point that they are now acceptable for screening. The most common radiotracer used in MBI, 99mTc-sestamibi, has a long history of safe use. Biopsy capability has become available in recent years, with early clinical experience demonstrating technically successful biopsies of MBI-detected lesions. MBI has been shown to be an effective supplemental screening tool in women with dense breasts and is also utilized for breast cancer staging, assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, problem solving, and as an alternative to breast MRI in women who have a contraindication to MRI. The degree of background parenchymal uptake on MBI shows promise as a tool for breast cancer risk stratification. Radiologist interpretation is guided by a validated MBI lexicon that mirrors the BI-RADS lexicon. With short interpretation times, a fast learning curve for radiologists, and a substantially lower cost than breast MRI, MBI provides many benefits in the practices in which it is utilized. This review will discuss the current state of MBI technology, clinical applications of MBI, MBI interpretation, radiation dose associated with MBI, and the future of MBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie N Hunt
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiology, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Berg WA, Rafferty EA, Friedewald SM, Hruska CB, Rahbar H. Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216:275-294. [PMID: 32903054 PMCID: PMC8101043 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.24436] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality; however, when used to examine women with dense breasts, its performance and resulting benefits are reduced. Increased breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), molecular breast imaging (MBI), MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) each have shown improved cancer detection in dense breasts when compared with 2D digital mammography (DM). DBT is the preferred mammographic technique for producing a simultaneous reduction in recalls (i.e., additional imaging). US further increases cancer detection after DM or DBT and reduces interval cancers (cancers detected in the interval between recommended screening examinations), but it also produces substantial additional false-positive findings. MBI improves cancer detection with an effective radiation dose that is approximately fourfold that of DM or DBT but is still within accepted limits. MRI provides the greatest increase in cancer detection and reduces interval cancers and late-stage disease; abbreviated techniques will reduce cost and improve availability. CEM appears to offer performance similar to that of MRI, but further validation is needed. Dense breast notification will soon be a national standard; therefore, understanding the performance of mammography and supplemental modalities is necessary to optimize screening for women with dense breasts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wendie A Berg
- Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
| | | | - Sarah M Friedewald
- Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Carrie B Hruska
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
| | - Habib Rahbar
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Wang L, Strigel RM. Supplemental Screening for Patients at Intermediate and High Risk for Breast Cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2020; 59:67-83. [PMID: 33223001 DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The sensitivity of mammography is more limited in patients with dense breasts and some patients at higher risk for breast cancer. Patients with intermediate or high risk for breast cancer may begin screening earlier and benefit from supplemental screening techniques beyond standard 2-dimensional mammography. A patient's individual risk factors for developing breast cancer, their breast density, and the evidence supporting specific modalities for a given clinical scenario help to determine the need for supplemental screening and the modality chosen. Additional factors include the availability of supplemental screening techniques at an individual institution, cost, insurance coverage, and state-specific breast density legislation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lilian Wang
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Prentice Women's Hospital, 250 East Superior Street, 4th Floor, Room 04-2304, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Roberta M Strigel
- Breast Imaging and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abstract
Screening for breast cancer reduces breast cancer-related mortality and earlier detection facilitates less aggressive treatment. Unfortunately, current screening modalities are imperfect, suffering from limited sensitivity and high false-positive rates. Novel techniques in the field of breast imaging may soon play a role in breast cancer screening: digital breast tomosynthesis, contrast material-enhanced spectral mammography, US (automated three-dimensional breast US, transmission tomography, elastography, optoacoustic imaging), MRI (abbreviated and ultrafast, diffusion-weighted imaging), and molecular breast imaging. Artificial intelligence and radiomics have the potential to further improve screening strategies. Furthermore, nonimaging-based screening tests such as liquid biopsy and breathing tests may transform the screening landscape. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ritse M Mann
- From the Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (R.H.); Department of Radiology, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Southwoods Imaging, Youngstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Department of Radiology, New York University Langone School of Medicine, New York, NY (L.M.); and Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, NY (L.M.)
| | - Regina Hooley
- From the Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (R.H.); Department of Radiology, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Southwoods Imaging, Youngstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Department of Radiology, New York University Langone School of Medicine, New York, NY (L.M.); and Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, NY (L.M.)
| | - Richard G Barr
- From the Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (R.H.); Department of Radiology, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Southwoods Imaging, Youngstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Department of Radiology, New York University Langone School of Medicine, New York, NY (L.M.); and Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, NY (L.M.)
| | - Linda Moy
- From the Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (R.H.); Department of Radiology, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Southwoods Imaging, Youngstown, Ohio (R.G.B.); Department of Radiology, New York University Langone School of Medicine, New York, NY (L.M.); and Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, NY (L.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Jain R, Katz DR, Kapoor AD. The Clinical Utility of a Negative Result at Molecular Breast Imaging: Initial Proof of Concept. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2020; 2:e190096. [PMID: 33778735 PMCID: PMC7983715 DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2020190096] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2019] [Revised: 04/28/2020] [Accepted: 05/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To calculate the negative predictive value (NPV) and false-negative rate (FNR) of molecular breast imaging (MBI) performed in patients who had low-suspicion index findings on mammograms and US images. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients who had undergone MBI between January 2015 and July 2017, who had index findings on screening mammograms and/or US images, and for whom either histopathologic results or a minimum of 1-year imaging follow-up results were available. A drawn dose of 8 mCi (296 MBq) of technetium 99m sestamibi was administered to all patients for MBI. The NPV and FNR of MBI was calculated for the cohort of 381 findings among 338 women (median age, 56 years; age range, 28-89 years) included in this study. Results Overall, 292 of the 381 (76.6%) MBI results were interpreted as negative. Of the 292, 27 patients underwent subsequent biopsies, results of which were negative for cancer; one patient underwent biopsy, and the result was positive for cancer; and 264 patients had true-negative findings based on follow-up imaging for a minimum of 1 year. Of the 89 MBI acquisitions interpreted as positive, there were 36 cancers. The NPV was calculated to be 99.7% (291 of 292, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 99.1%, 100%), and the FNR was 2.7% (one of 37, 95% CI: 0%, 7.9%). Interposing MBI reduced the number of biopsies by 67.5%. Conclusion The concept of the clinical utility of a negative MBI result may be valid but requires further testing.Keywords: Breast, Molecular Imaging-Cancer© RSNA, 2020.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ravi Jain
- From Middlesex Health, 28 Crescent St, Middletown, CT 06457
| | - Deanna R. Katz
- From Middlesex Health, 28 Crescent St, Middletown, CT 06457
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Adrada BE, Moseley T, Kappadath SC, Whitman GJ, Rauch GM. Molecular Breast Imaging-guided Percutaneous Biopsy of Breast Lesions: A New Frontier on Breast Intervention. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2020; 2:484-491. [PMID: 33015619 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2020] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is an increasingly recognized nuclear medicine imaging modality to detect breast lesions suspicious for malignancy. Recent advances have allowed the development of tissue sampling of MBI-detected lesions using a single-headed camera (breast-specific gamma imaging system) or a dual-headed camera system (MBI system). In this article, we will review current indications of MBI, differences of the two single- and dual-headed camera systems, the appropriate selection of biopsy equipment, billing considerations, and radiation safety. It will also include practical considerations and guidance on how to integrate MBI and MBI-guided biopsy in the current breast imaging workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beatriz E Adrada
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Houston, TX
| | - Tanya Moseley
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Houston, TX
| | - S Cheenu Kappadath
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Imaging Physics, Houston, TX
| | - Gary J Whitman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Houston, TX
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Background Parenchymal Uptake on Molecular Breast Imaging and Breast Cancer Risk: A Cohort Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 216:1193-1204. [PMID: 32755210 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.23854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Background parenchymal uptake (BPU) on molecular breast imaging (MBI) was identified in a case-control study as a breast cancer risk factor beyond mammographic density. To our knowledge, this finding has not yet been confirmed in a cohort study. OBJECTIVE. The objectives of this study were to examine the association of BPU with breast cancer and to estimate the absolute risk and discriminatory accuracy of BPU in a cohort study. METHODS. A retrospective cohort was established that included women without a history of breast cancer who underwent MBI from 2004 to 2015. Radiologists who were blinded to future breast cancer diagnoses assessed BPU on baseline MBI examinations as low (photopenic or minimal) or elevated (mild, moderate, or marked). Associations of BPU with breast cancer were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models of the time to diagnosis. The 5-year absolute risk was calculated for study subgroups. The discriminatory accuracy of BPU was also assessed. RESULTS. Among 2992 women (mean age, 56.3 years; SD, 10.6 years) who underwent MBI, breast cancer events occurred in 144 women (median follow-up, 7.3 years). Median time to diagnosis after MBI was 4.2 years (range, 0.5-11.6 years). Elevated BPU was associated with a greater breast cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 2.39; 95% CI, 1.68-3.41; p ≤ .001). This association remained in postmenopausal women (HR, 3.50; 95% CI, 2.31-5.31; p < .001) but was not significant in premenopausal women (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.72-2.32; p = .39). The 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer was 4.3% (95% CI, 2.9-5.7%) for women with elevated BPU versus 2.5% (95% CI, 1.8-3.1%) for those with low BPU. Postmenopausal women with dense breasts and elevated BPU had a 5-year absolute risk of 8.1% (95% CI, 4.3-11.8%) versus 2.8% (1.8-3.8%) for those with low BPU. Among postmenopausal women, discriminatory accuracy for invasive cancer was improved with the addition of BPU versus use of the Gail risk score alone (C statistic, 65.1 vs 59.1; p = .04) or use of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk score alone (C statistic, 66.4 vs 60.4; p = .04). CONCLUSION. BPU on MBI is an independent risk factor for breast cancer, with the strongest association observed among postmenopausal women with dense breasts. In postmenopausal women, BPU provides incremental discrimination in predicting breast cancer when combined with either the Gail model or the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model. CLINICAL IMPACT. Observation of elevated BPU on MBI may identify a subset of women with dense breasts who would benefit most from supplemental screening or preventive options.
Collapse
|
22
|
Molecular Breast Imaging at Ultra-Low Radiation Dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 215:W30. [DOI: 10.2214/ajr.19.22746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
23
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to review clinical uses and image interpretation of molecular breast imaging (MBI) and clarify radiation risks. CONCLUSION. MBI detects additional cancers compared with conventional imaging in women with dense breasts and those with elevated risk of breast cancer. Its role as an imaging biomarker of cancer risk and in assessing neoadjuvant chemotherapy response is growing. Radiation risk is minimal; benefit-to-risk ratio is similar to that of mammography. MBI is low cost, well tolerated, and easily adapted into clinical practice.
Collapse
|
24
|
Hendrick RE. Radiation Doses and Risks in Breast Screening. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2020; 2:188-200. [PMID: 38424982 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2019] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
This article describes radiation doses and cancer risks of digital breast imaging technologies used for breast cancer detection. These include digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and newer technologies such as contrast-enhanced digital or spectral mammography (CEM), whole-breast computed tomography, breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), molecular breast imaging (MBI), and positron emission mammography (PEM). This article describes the basis for radiation risk estimates, compares radiation doses and risks, and provides benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for different breast imaging modalities that use ionizing radiation. Current x-ray-based screening modalities such as DM and DBT have small to negligible risks of causing radiation-induced cancers in women of normal screening age. Possible new screening modalities such as CEM have similar small cancer risks. Potential screening modalities that involve radionuclide injection such as BSGI, MBI, and PEM have significantly higher cancer risks unless efficient detection systems and reduced administered doses are used. Benefit-to-radiation-risk estimates are highly favorable for screening with DM and other modalities having comparable (or higher) cancer detection rates and comparably low radiation doses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Edward Hendrick
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Aurora, CO
| |
Collapse
|