Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Breast Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports 4/2016

01-12-2016 | Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Dedicated Breast CT: Screening Technique of the Future

Authors: Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri, Jonathan B. Hargreaves, John M. Boone, Karen K. Lindfors

Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Mammography has been the mainstay of breast imaging for over four decades and is the only screening modality demonstrated to reduce mortality from breast cancer. The known limitations of mammography have prompted the development of newer imaging techniques with three-dimensional capabilities such as dedicated breast computed tomography (bCT). Several studies have shown the superiority of bCT in detection of breast masses, when compared to 2-D mammography. Malignant micro-calcification lesions can be detected and characterized by bCT. With further development of higher resolution detectors, bCT should become a modality for large population screening. Contrast-enhanced bCT (CE-bCT) adds improved specificity over mammography and may be utilized as an imaging biomarker in the emerging era of precision medicine.
Literature
1.
Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH-H, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):658–63.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen THH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42(5):793–806.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1):55–66.CrossRefPubMed
5.
van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ, National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in Netherlands Study G. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(16):3517–25.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Feig S. Cost-effectiveness of mammography, MRI, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;48(5):879–91.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chubak J, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA, Elmore JG. Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms. Med Care. 2010;48(9):815–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Aminololama-Shakeri S, Khatri VP. Emerging modalities in breast cancer imaging. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2014;23(4):735–49.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499–507.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
O’Connell AM, Karellas A, Vedantham S. The potential role of dedicated 3D breast CT as a diagnostic tool: review and early clinical examples. Breast J. 2014;20(6):592–605.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
Chang CH, Sibala JL, Fritz SL, Gallagher JH, Dwyer 3rd SJ, Templeton AW. Computed tomographic evaluation of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978;131(3):459–64.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ning R, Conover D, Yu Y, et al. A novel cone beam breast CT scanner: system evaluation. Medical Imaging: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2007; p. 651030–9.
18.
Sarno A, Mettivier G, Russo P. Dedicated breast computed tomography: basic aspects. Med Phys. 2015;42(6):2786–804.CrossRefPubMed
19.
O’Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y, et al. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):496–509.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Boone JM, Nelson TR, Lindfors KK, Seibert JA. Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology. 2001;221(3):657–67.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Boone JM, Kwan AL, Seibert JA, Shah N, Lindfors KK, Nelson TR. Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT. Med Phys. 2005;32(12):3767–76.CrossRefPubMed
22.
O’Connell AM, Kawakyu-O’Connor D. 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. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2012;2:7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
• Kuzmiak CM, Cole EB, Zeng D, Tuttle LA, Steed D, Pisano ED. Dedicated three-dimensional breast computed tomography: lesion characteristic perception by radiologists. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2016;6:14. Reader study of comparing breast CT and digital mammography in assessing reader confidence when characterizing twenty-four BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.
24.
• Zhao B, Zhang X, Cai W, Conover D, Ning R. Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):48–53. A comparison study of breast CT and digital mammography evaluating 85 breast masses showing improvement in performance if CT over mammography.
25.
Chang CH, Sibala JL, Gallagher JH, et al. Computed tomography of the breast. A preliminary report. Radiology. 1977;124(3):827–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
• Aminololama-Shakeri S, Abbey CK, Gazi P, et al. Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(1):297–303. Reader study showing improved CT performance in differentiating benign and malignant micro-calcifications when compared to mammography.
27.
Sardanelli F, Calabrese M, Zandrino F, et al. Dynamic helical CT of breast tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(3):398–407.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Inoue M, Sano T, Watai R, et al. Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(3):679–86.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Aminololama-Shakeri S, Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Boone JM. Detection of DCIS with dedicated breast CT. Annual RSNA Meeting 2011.
30.
Vedantham S, O’Connell AM, Shi L, Karellas A, Huston AJ, Skinner KA, et al. Dedicated breast CT: feasibility for monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:64.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Aminololama-Shakeri S, Nosratieh A, Lindfors KK, Boone JM. Is contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT superior to DBTor DM in the evaluation of BIRADS 4 and 5 breast lesions? Annual RSNA Meeting. Chicago, IL; 2013.
32.
Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Ganott MA, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced cone beam CT to CE-MRI in the categorization of breast lesions. Annual RSNA Meeting. Chicao, IL; 2011.
33.
Chen L, Abbey CK, Nosratieh A, Lindfors KK, Boone JM. Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies. Med Phys. 2012;39(3):1435–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Metadata
Title
Dedicated Breast CT: Screening Technique of the Future
Authors
Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri
Jonathan B. Hargreaves
John M. Boone
Karen K. Lindfors
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Breast Cancer Reports / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1943-4588
Electronic ISSN: 1943-4596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0227-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Current Breast Cancer Reports 4/2016 Go to the issue

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Screening Breast Cancer: the Mammography War

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Can Tomosynthesis Replace 2D Mammography as a Future Breast Screening Tool?

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Screening Breast Ultrasound: Where Are We Today?

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Molecular Breast Imaging: Role as a Screening Modality

Systemic Therapies (M Liu and T Haddad, Section Editors)

Management of Potential Long-Term Toxicities in Breast Cancer Patients

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Breast MRI Screening: Benefits and Limitations
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits