Search

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.

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 (I 2 = 89.4%, I 2 = 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 (I 2 = 57.3%, p = 0.0527; I 2 = 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.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of breast density on the diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) in comparison to mammography for the detection of breast masses., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from August 2015 to July 2016. Fifty-nine patients (65 breasts, 112 lesions) with BI-RADS, 5th edition 4 or 5 assessment in mammography and/or ultrasound of the breast received an additional non-contrast CBBCT. Independent double blind reading by two radiologists was performed for mammography and CBBCT imaging. Sensitivity, specificity and AUC were compared between the modalities., Results: Breast lesions were histologically examined in 85 of 112 lesions (76%). The overall sensitivity for CBBCT (reader 1: 91%, reader 2: 88%) was higher than in mammography (both: 68%, p<0.001), and also for the high-density group (p<0.05). The specificity and AUC was higher for mammography in comparison to CBBCT (p<0.05 and p<0.001). The interobserver agreement (ICC) between the readers was 90% (95% CI: 86-93%) for mammography and 87% (95% CI: 82-91%) for CBBCT., Conclusions: Compared with two-view mammography, non-contrast CBBCT has higher sensitivity, lower specificity, and lower AUC for breast mass detection in both high and low density breasts., Key Points: • Overall sensitivity for non-contrast CBBCT ranged between 88%-91%. • Sensitivity was higher for CBBCT than mammography in both density types (p<0.001). • Specificity was higher for mammography than CBBCT in both density types (p<0.05). • AUC was larger for mammography than CBBCT in both density types (p<0.001).

Objective: To investigate the optimal acquisition time of contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT) for best discrimination of breast lesion malignancy and whether contrast enhancement can aid in classification of tumor histology.Material and Methods: The study included patients with BI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions identified on mammography and/or ultrasound. All patients were examined by non-contrast (NC-CBBCT) and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (CE-CBBCT) at 2 and 3min after contrast media (CM) injection. Lesion enhancement of suspicious breast lesions was evaluated in corresponding CBBCT slices.Results: A total of 31 patients with 57 breast lesions, 30 malignant and 27 benign, were included. Malignant breast lesions demonstrated higher contrast enhancement than benign breast lesions at both 2min and 3min CE-CBBCT (2min: 48.17 vs. 0.3 HU, p<0.001; 3min: 57.38 vs. 15.43 HU, p<0.001). Enhancement differences between malignant and benign breast lesions were largest at 2min CE-CBBCT. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) showed highest mean contrast enhancement among malignant breast lesions (100.93 HU at 3min CE-CBBCT, p=0.0314) compared to invasive carcinoma of no special type with DCIS component (55.82 HU at 3min CE-CBBCT) and invasive ductal carcinoma (52.31 HU at 3min CE-CBBCT).Conclusions: The contrast enhancement on CE-CBBCT best discriminates between malignant and benign breast lesions at 2min after CM injection. The enhancement has the potential to differentiate histopathological subtypes, with highest enhancement among malignant lesions seen for DCIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]