Breast imaging in the new era

Cancer Imaging

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 30-41

  Planche, K ^a   Vinnicombe, S ^a  

^a ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Computer aided detection; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography; Positron emission tomography; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

EID: 55449084087     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14707330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2003.0033     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Sickles E. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179: 463-8.
2. Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Fussell J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. Br Med J 1996; 312: 273-6.
3. Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR et al. The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 nonpalpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol 1996; 51: 277-81.
4. Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM et al. Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? J Digit Imaging 1997; 10: 79-84.
5. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D. Screen film versus full field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterisation of lesions. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1697-702.
6. Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Johnston DA et al. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR and screen/film. Med Phys 2002; 29: 2052-61.
7. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2679-83.
8. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M et al. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2188-91.
9. Leung JW. New modalities in breast imaging: digital mammography, positron emission tomography, and sestamibi scintimammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40: 467-82.
10. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Dershaw DD, Schreer I. Digital mammography. In: Diagnostic Breast Imaging, Stuttgart/New York: Thieme, 2001: 71-4.
11. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Inis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 1167-72.
12. Burhenne WLJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000; 215: 554-62.
13. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. J Med Screen 1998; 5: 195-201.
14. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films: one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993; 48: 414-21.
15. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191: 241-4.
16. Castellino RA. Computer-aided detection (CAD) in oncologic imaging: breast, chest and other applications. Cancer Imaging 2002; 3: 47-50.
17. Astley SM. Computer-aided detection in mammography. Where are we today? In: Breast Imaging: Where Are We Going?, London: RIBA, 2003.
18. Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL et al. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 2003; 227: 192-200.
19. Hendrick JHC. Comparison of CAD with double reading in breast cancer screening. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computer-Aided Diagnosis, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999.
20. Castellino RA, Roehrig JR, Zhang W. Improved computer aided detection (CAD) algorithms for screening mammography. Radiology 2000; 217(P): 400.
21. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF et al. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001; 219: 192-202.
22. Kegelmeyer WP Jr, Pruneda JM, Bourland PD, Hillis A, Rigs MW, Nipper ML. Computer-aided mammographic screening of spiculated lesions. Radiology 1994; 191: 331-7.
23. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001; 220: 781-6.
24. Ho WT, Lam PW. Clinical performance of computer-assisted detection (CAD) system in detecting carcinoma in breasts of different densities. Clin Radiol 2003; 58: 133-6.
25. Baum F, Fischer U, Obenauer S et al. Computer-aided detection in direct digital full-field mammography: initial results. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 3015-7.
26. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Dershaw DD, Schreer I. Sonography. In: Diagnostic Breast Imaging, Stuttgart/New York: Thieme, 2001: 87-102.
27. Jackson VP. The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33: 1161-70.
28. Gordon PB. Ultrasound for breast cancer screening and staging. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40: 431-41.
29. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening ultrasound - diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998; 207: 191-9.
30. Kubota K, Hisa N, Ogawa Y. Evaluation of tissue harmonic imaging for breast tumours and axillary lymph nodes. Oncol Rep 2002; 9: 1335-8.
31. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, Jeffrey SS, Jeffrey RB Jr. Preliminary experience with power Doppler imaging of solid breast masses. Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169: 703-7.
32. Huber S, Helbich T, Kettenbach J et al. Effects of a microbubble contrast agent on breast tumours: computerassisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler experience. Radiology 1998; 208: 485-9.
33. Chaudhari MH, Forsberg F, Voodarla A et al. Breast tumour vascularity identified by contrast enhanced ultrasound and pathology: initial results. Ultrasonics 2000; 38: 105-9.
34. Yang WT, Metreweli C, Lam PK, Chang J. Benign and malignant breast masses and axillary nodes: evaluation with echo-enhanced color power Doppler US. Radiology 2001; 220: 795-802.
35. Moon WK, Im JG, Noh DY, Han MC. Nonpalpable breast lesions: evaluation with power Doppler US and a microbubble contrast agent - initial experience. Radiology 2000; 217: 240-6.
36. Huber S, Helbich T, Kettenbach J et al. Effects of a microbubble contrast agent on breast tumours: computerassisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US - early experience. Radiology 1998; 208: 485-9.
37. Lee SW, Choi HY, Baek SY et al. Role of color and power Doppler imaging in differentiating between malignant and benign solid breast masses. J Clin Ultrasound 2002; 30: 459-64.
38. Winehouse J, Douek M, Holz K et al. Contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasonography in suspected breast cancer recurrence. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 1198-201.
39. Azhari H, Sazbon D. Volumetric imaging with ultrasonic spiral CT. Radiology 1999; 212: 270-5.
40. Chen DR, Chang RF, Chen WM et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for 3-dimensional breast ultrasonography. Arch Surg 2003; 138: 296-302.
41. Huber S, Wagner M, Medl M et al. Real-time spatial compound imaging in breast ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28: 155-63.
42. Richter K, Heywang-Kobrünner SH. Sonographic differentiation of benign from malignant lesions: value of indirect measurement of ultrasound velocity. Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165: 825-31.
43. Hlawatsch A, Teifke A, Schmidt M, Thelen M. Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 1492-501.
44. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999; 213: 881-8.
45. Harms SE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1998; 19: 104-20.
46. Morris EA. Breast cancer imaging with MRI. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40: 443-66.
47. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced turboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994; 205: 777-81.
48. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Dershaw DD, van Zee KJ, Abramson AF, Liberman L. MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology 1997; 205: 437-40.
49. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999; 211: 101-10.
50. * susceptibility contrast, first pass perfusion imaging. Radiology 1997; 202: 87-95.
51. Gorczyca DP, Sinha S, Ahn CY et al. Silicone breast implants in vivo: MR imaging. Radiology 1992; 185: 407-10.
52. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L et al. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 110-9.
53. Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology 2003; 226: 773-8.
54. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 333-41.
55. Kneeshaw PJ, Turnbull LW, Smith A et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging aids the surgical management of invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29: 32-7.
56. Warren RM, Crawley A. Is breast MRI ever useful in a mammographic screening programme? Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 1090-7.
57. Kawashima H, Tawara M, Suzuki M et al. Effectiveness of dynamic MRI for diagnosing pericicatricial minimal residual breast cancer following excisional biopsy. Eur J Radiol 2002; 40: 2-9.
58. Hwang ES, Kinkel K, Esserman LJ et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ: value in diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion and multicentricity. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 381-8.
59. Murray AD, Staff RT, Redpath TW et al. Dynamic contrastenhanced MRI of the axilla in women with breast cancer: comparison with pathology of excised nodes. Br J Radiol 2002; 75: 220-8.
60. Stets C, Brandt S, Wallis F et al. Axillary lymph node metastases: a statistical analysis of various parameters in MRI with USPIO. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16: 60-8.
61. Michel SC, Keller TM, Frolich JM et al. Preoperative breast cancer staging: MR imaging of the axilla with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide enhancement. Radiology 2002; 225: 527-36.
62. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y et al. Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 1193-9.
63. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A et al. Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1711-9.
64. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RE, Leutner CC et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Radiology 2000; 215: 267-79.
65. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Gao YG et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16: 172-8.
66. Kinoshita T, Yashiro N, Ihara N et al. Diffusion-weighted half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo imaging in breast tumours: differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma from fibroadenoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002; 26: 1042-6.
67. Wu T, Felmlee JP, Greenleaf JF et al. MR imaging of shear waves generated by focussed ultrasound. Magn Reson Med 2000; 43: 111-5.
68. McKnight AL, Kugel JL, Rossman PJ et al. MR elastography of breast cancer: preliminary results. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 1411-7.
69. Lorenzen J, Sinkus R, Dargatz M et al. MR elastography of the breast: preliminary clinical results. Rofo Fortschr Geb 2002; 174: 830-4.
70. Leach MO, Verrill M, Glholm M et al. Measurements of human breast cancer using magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a review of clinical measurements and a report of localised 31P measurements of response to treatment. NMR Biomed 1998; 11: 314-40.
71. Roebuck JR, Cecil KM, Schnall MD et al. Human breast lesions: characterisation with proton MR spectroscopy. Radiology 1998; 209: 269-75.
72. Kvistad KA, Bakken IJ, Gribbestad IS et al. Characterisation of neoplastic and normal human breast tissues with in-vivo (1)H MR spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 159-64.
73. Yeung DK, Yang WT, Tse GM. Breast cancer: in vivo proton spectroscopy in the characterisation of histopathologic subtypes and preliminary observations in axillary nodal metastases. Radiology 2002; 225: 190-7.
74. Kuhl CK, Elevelt A, Leutner CC, Geiseke J, Pakos E, Schild HH. Interventional breast MR imaging: clinical use of a stereotactic localization and biopsy device. Radiology 1997; 204: 667-75.
75. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Magnetic resonance guided localization and biopsy of suspicious breast lesions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 9: 44-59.
76. Malich A, Fritsch T, Boehm T et al. Electrical impedance scanning for classifying suspicious breast lesions: first results. Eur J Radiol 2000; 10: 1555-61.
77. Melloul M, Paz A, Ohana G et al. Double-phase 99m-TcSestamibi scintigraphy and trans-scan in diagnosing breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 376-80.
78. Wersebe A, Siegmann K, Krainick U et al. Diagnostic potential of targeted electrical impedance scanning in classifying suspicious breast lesions. Invest Radiol 2002; 37: 65-72.
79. Martin G, Martin R, Brieva MJ et al. Electrical impedance scanning in breast cancer imaging: correlation with mammographic and histologic diagnosis. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1471-8.
80. Parisky YR, Sardi A, Hamm R et al. Efficacy of computerized infrared imaging analysis to evaluate mammographically suspicious lesions. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 263-9.
81. Tiling R, Tatsch K, Sommer H et al. Technetium-99msestamibi scintimammography for the detection of breast carcinoma: comparison between planar and SPECT imaging. J Nucl Med 1998; 39: 849-56.
82. Gopalan D, Bomanji JB, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Nuclear medicine in primary breast cancer imaging. Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 565-74.
83. Al-Yasi AR, Carroll MJ, Ellison D et al. Axillary node status in breast cancer patients prior to surgery by imaging with Tc99m humanised anti-PEM monoclonal antibody, hHMFG1. Br J Cancer 2002; 86: 870-8.
84. Spanu A, Schillaci O, Meloni GB et al. The usefulness of 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT scintigraphy in the detection of small size primary breast carcinomas. Int J Oncol 2002; 21: 831-40.
85. Kakuda JT, Stuntz ME, Vargas HI, Khalkhali I. Status of scintimammography and its relationship to other detec- tion methods for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 18: 1689-95.
86. Taillefer R. The role of 99mTc Sestamibi and other conventional radiopharmaceuticals in breast cancer diagnosis. Semin Nucl Med 1999; 29: 16-40.
87. Waxman AD. 99mTc Sestamibi in imaging breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1997; 27: 40-54.
88. Tilling R, Khalkhali I, Sommer H et al. Role of 99mTc Sestamibi scintimammography and contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of indeterminate mammograms. Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24: 1221-9.
89. Wang HC, Sun SS, Kao A et al. Comparison of technetium99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer in patients with mammographically dense breast. Cancer Invest 2002; 20: 318-23.
90. Imbriaco M, Del Vecchio S, Riccardi A et al. Scintimammography with 99m-Tc-MIBI versus dynamic MRI for non-invasive characterisation of breast masses. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 56-63.
91. Khalkhali I, Villanueva-Meyer J, Edell SL et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Tc99m sestamibi breast imaging in breast cancer detection. J Nucl Med 1996; 37: 74P.
92. Krag DN, Weaver DL, Alex JC et al. Surgical resection and radiolocalisation of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using gamma probe. Surg Oncol 1993; 2: 335-40.
93. Taillefer R, Roubidoux A, Lambert R. Technetium-99msestamibi prone scintimammography to detect primary breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1758-65.
94. Spanu A, Farris A, Schillaci O et al. The usefulness of 99mTc tetrofosmin scintigraphy in patients with breast cancer recurrences. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24: 145-54.
95. Kim R, Osaki A, Hirai T, Toge T. Utility of technetium-99m methoxyisobutyl isonitrile uptake analysis for prediction of the response to chemotherapy in advanced and relapsed breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2002; 9: 240-7.
96. Tiling R, Kessler M, Untch M et al. Breast cancer: monitoring response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Onkologie 2003; 26: 27-31.
97. Cayre A, Cachin F, Maublant J et al. Single static view 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and is related to MDR expression. Int J Oncol 2002; 20: 1049-55.
98. Sciuto R, Pasqualoni R, Bergomi S et al. Prognostic value of (99m)Tc-sestamibi washout in predicting response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 745-51.
99. Higashi K, Clavo AC, Wahl RI. Does FDG uptake measure proliferative activity of human cancer cells? In vitro comparison with DNA flow cytometry and tritiated thymidine uptake. J Nucl Med 1993; 34: 414-9.
100. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 1317-23.
101. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3495-502.
102. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989; 63: 181-7.
103. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. PET in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1998; 28: 290-302.
104. Greco M, Crippa F, Agresti R et al. Axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer by 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucosepositron emission tomography: clinical evaluation and alternative management. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 630-5.
105. Yutani K, Shiba E, Kusuoka H et al. Comparison of FDG-PET to MIBI-SPECT in the detection of breast cancer and axillary lymph node metastasis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000; 24: 274-80.
106. van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Comans EF et al. Determinants of diagnostic performance of [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for axillary staging in breast cancer. Ann Surg 2002; 236: 619-24.
107. Avril N, Dose J, Janicke F et al. Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1848-57.
108. Gallowitsch HJ, Kresnik E, Gasser J et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumour recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma; a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 250-6.
109. Schelling M, Avril N, Nahrig J et al. Positron emission tomography using 18F fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1689-95.
110. Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW et al. Positron emission tomography using 18F fluorodeoxyglucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1676-88.
111. Gennari A, Donati S, Salvadori B et al. Role of 2-[18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) in the early assessment of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin Breast Cancer 2000; 1: 156-61.
112. Burcombe RJ, Makris A, Pittam M et al. Evaluation of good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 375-9.
113. Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Perrier ND et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 86-91.