Update on emerging technologies in breast imaging

JNCCN Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Volumn 10, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1355-1362

  Patterson, Stephanie K ^a   Noroozian, Mitra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HOSPITALS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SCINTIMAMMOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND;

EID: 84871462828     PISSN: 15401405     EISSN: 15401413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0141     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population and subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376-383.
2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783. (Pubitemid 41549889)
3. Park JM, Franken EA, Garg M, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 2007;27:S231-240.
4. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:616-623. (Pubitemid 47328544)
5. Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Zhang Y, et al. Tomosynthesis mammography versus conventional mammography: lesion detection and reader preference - initial experience. Presented at the Radiological Society of North America 92nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; November 26-December 1, 2006; Chicago, Illinois.
6. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:865-869. (Pubitemid 351571506)
7. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2817-2825.
8. Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Hadjiiski L, et al. Tomosynthesis mammography versus conventional mammography: comparison of breast masses detection and characterization. Presented at the Radiological Society of North America 93rd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; November 25-30, 2007; Chicago, Illinois.
9. Lo JY, Baker JA. Breast tomosynthesis: assessing patient compression comfort, and preference. Presented at the Radiological Society of North America 92nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting. November 26-December 1, 2006; Chicago, Illinois.
10. Rafferty EA, Smith AP, Niklason LT. Assessing radiologist performance in dense versus fatty breasts using combined full-field digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared to full-field digital mammography alone. Presented at the Radiological Society of North America 95th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; November 29-December 4, 2009; Chicago, Illinois.
11. Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE, et al. Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J of Roentgenology 2011;196:737-741.
12. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR AM J Roentgenol 2009;193:586-591.
13. Zhao B, Zhao W. Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system. Med Phys 2008;35:1978-1987. (Pubitemid 351614813)
14. Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Proc SPIE 2005;5745:529-540. (Pubitemid 41146400)
15. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin N Am 2010;48:917-929.
16. Teerstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:16-24.
17. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:320-324.
18. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 2011;18:1298-1310.
19. Bassett LW, Dhaliwal SG, Eradat J, et al. National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J of Roentgenology 2008;191:332-339.
20. Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, et al. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 2008;246:116-124. (Pubitemid 350305034)
21. Medeiros LR, Duarte CS, Rosa DD, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;126:273-285.
22. 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;57:75-89. (Pubitemid 46535708)
23. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, et al. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:671-679. (Pubitemid 351669112)
24. Bevers TB, Bonaccio E, Buys SS, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Version 1, 2012. Available at: NCCN.org. Accessed March 7, 2012.
25. Berg WA, Blume JD, Adams AM, et al. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology 2010;254:79-87.
26. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: Systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3248-3258.
27. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Drotman MB, et al. Evaluation of pectoralis major muscle in patients with posterior breast tumors on breast MR images: early experience. Radiology 2000;21:67-72. (Pubitemid 30019871)
28. Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5640-5649.
29. Fischer U, Zachariae O, Baum F, et al. The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1725-1731. (Pubitemid 39386618)
30. Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, et al. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2008;6:386-391. (Pubitemid 351171689)
31. Hwang N, Schiller DE, Crystal P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the planning of initial lumpectomy for invasive breast carcinoma: its effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3000-3009.
32. Anderson SJ, Wapnir I, Dignam JJ, et al. Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in patients treated by breast-conserving therapy in five national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols of node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009:27:2466-2473.
33. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375:563-571.
34. Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 2012;345:e4505.
35. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA 2012;307:467-475.
36. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA 2009;302:1551-1556.
37. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:1297-1303.
38. Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos P, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:915-920. (Pubitemid 40486677)
39. Mann RM, Loo CE, Wobbes T, et al. The impact of preoperative breast MRI on the re-excision rate in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;119:415-422.
40. El Khouli RH, Macura KJ, Kamel IR, et al. 3-T dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: pharmacokinetic parameters versus conventional kinetic curve analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1498-1505.
41. Hatakenaka M, Soeda H, Yabuuchi H, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. Magn Reson Med Sci 2008;7:23-29.
42. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004;230:29-41. (Pubitemid 37549780)
43. Greenberg K, Hooley R, Stackhouse R, et al. Ultrasound screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Presented at the Radiological Society of North America 97th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; November 27-December 2, 2011; Chicago, Illinois.
44. Gorden PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-630.
45. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2000;21:325-336.
46. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175.
47. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-649. (Pubitemid 33101754)
48. Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 2006;111:440-448.
49. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177-182. (Pubitemid 36741481)
50. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenology 2003;180:1675-1679. (Pubitemid 36687107)
51. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-2163. (Pubitemid 351679706)
52. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 2012;262:435-449.
53. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292:1317-1325. (Pubitemid 39223222)
54. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8469-8476.
55. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): interim results. Radiology 2007;242:619-715.
56. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244:381-388. (Pubitemid 47080869)
57. Sickles EA. The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48:859-878.
58. Kelly KM, Richwald GA. Automated whole-breast ultrasound: advancing the performance of breast cancer screening. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011;32:273-280.
59. Kelly K, Dea J, Comulada W, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010;20:734-742.
60. Booi RC, Krucker JF, Goodsitt MM, et al. Evaluating thin compression paddles for mammographically compatible ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007;33:472-482. (Pubitemid 46275188)
61. Kapur A, Carson PL, Eberhard J, et al. Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004;3:325-334. (Pubitemid 39096604)
62. Sinha SP, Goodsitt MM, Roubidoux MA, et al. Automated ultrasound scanning on a dual-modality breast imaging system: coverage and motion issues and solutions. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26:645-655. (Pubitemid 46668897)
63. Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology 2010;257:246-253.
64. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006;12:309-323. (Pubitemid 43989975)
65. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, et al. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:219-232.
66. Rhodes DJ, O'Connor MK, Phillips SW, et al. Molecular breast imaging: a new technique using technetium Tc 99m scintimammography to detect small tumors of the breast. Mayo Clin Proc 2005;80:24-30. (Pubitemid 40075987)
67. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, et al. Dedicated dual-Head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology 2011;258:106-118.
68. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Kieper DA, et al. High-resolution scintimammography: a pilot study. J Nucl Med 2002;43:909-915. (Pubitemid 34747814)
69. Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, et al. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 2008;247:651-657.
70. Weigert JM, Bertrand ML, Lanzkowsky L, et al. Results of a multicenter patient registry to determine the clinical impact of breast-specific gamma imaging, a molecular breast imaging technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:W69-W75.