Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 3541–3548 | Cite as

Adjunctive Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging for Detecting Cancer in Women with Calcifications at Mammography

  • Hyun Woo Chung
  • Young So
  • Jung-Hyun Yang
  • Kyoung Sik Park
  • Young Bum Yoo
  • Nami Choi
  • Mi Young Kim
  • Jayoun Kim
  • Eun Jeong Lee
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Mammography detects calcium deposits sensitively, but the specificity for differentiating malignancy from benign calcifications is low. Thus, we investigated whether adjunctive breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) has incremental value for detecting cancer in women with suspicious calcifications detected by mammography, and compared BSGI with adjunctive ultrasonography (US).

Methods

The medical records of women without a personal history of breast cancer who underwent mammography for breast evaluation from 2009 to 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients who had calcifications detected by mammography, with a result of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 3–5, underwent adjunctive US and BSGI and were included in this study. A total of 302 breast lesions in 266 women (mean age ± standard deviation 49 ± 9 years) were selected for this study.

Results

For detecting breast cancer using mammography plus BSGI, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating curve with 95% confidence intervals were 94% (91–96), 90% (86–93), 91% (87–94), 94% (90–96), and 0.92 (0.89–0.95), respectively. For mammography plus US, the respective values were 97% (94–98), 51% (46–57), 68% (63–73), 94% (90–96), and 0.74 (0.70–0.78).

Conclusions

Adjunctive BSGI had higher specificity than adjunctive US without loss of sensitivity. This finding suggests that adjunctive BSGI may be a useful complementary initial imaging method to improve the detection of breast cancer in women who have calcifications with suspicious morphology at mammography.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by Konkuk University. This work has not been previously published and it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The publication of this work has been approved by all co-authors.

Disclosures

Hyun Woo Chung, Young So, Jung-Hyun Yang, Kyoung Sik Park, Young Bum Yoo, Nami Choi, Mi Young Kim, Jayoun Kim, and Eun Jeong Lee declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was reviewed by the appropriate Ethics Committee and was therefore performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki revised in Brazil in 2013. This retrospective study was waived from the need to obtain informed consent by our Institutional Review Board.

References

  1. 1.
    Cox RF, Morgan MP. Microcalcifications in breast cancer: Lessons from physiological mineralization. Bone. 2013;53:437–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, Hermann G, de Csepel J, Estabrook A, et al. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics. Ann Surg. 2002;235:246–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Roos MA, van der Vegt B, de Vries J, Wesseling J, de Bock GH. Pathological and biological differences between screen-detected and interval ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2097–104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farshid G, Sullivan T, Downey P, Gill PG, Pieterse S. Independent predictors of breast malignancy in screen-detected microcalcifications: biopsy results in 2545 cases. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:1669–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rao AA, Feneis J, Lalonde C, Ojeda-Fournier H. A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. Radiographics. 2016;36:623–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;225:165–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu PC, Lee YW, Chou FF, et al. Clustered microcalcifications of intermediate concern detected on digital mammography: ultrasound assessment. Breast. 2011;20:495–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones EA, Phan TD, Blanchard DA, Miley A. Breast-specific gamma-imaging: molecular imaging of the breast using 99mTc-sestamibi and a small-field-of-view gamma-camera. J Nucl Med Technol. 2009;37:201–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scopinaro F, Pani R, De Vincentis G, Soluri A, Pellegrini R, Porfiri LM. High-resolution scintimammography improves the accuracy of technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography: use of a new dedicated gamma camera. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:1279–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;247:651–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wahner-Roedler DL, Boughey JC, Hruska CB, et al. The use of molecular breast imaging to assess response in women undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: a pilot study. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:344–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rechtman LR, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman JH, Teal CB, Torrente J, Rapelyea JA, et al. Breast-specific gamma imaging for the detection of breast cancer in dense versus nondense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014:202;293–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bent CK, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Sayre JW. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1378–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1–170, v–vi.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim SA, Chang JM, Cho N, Yi A, Moon WK. Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16:229–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weigert JM, Bertrand ML, Lanzkowsky L, Stern LH, Kieper DA. 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:W69–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:341–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hruska CB, Rhodes DJ, Conners AL, Jones KN, Carter RE, Lingineni RK, et al. Background parenchymal uptake during molecular breast imaging and associated clinical factors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W363–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu X, Hu G, Zhang Z, et al. Retrospective and comparative analysis of (99m)Tc-Sestamibi breast specific gamma imaging versus mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in Chinese women. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:450. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2537-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holbrook A, Newel MS. Alternative screening for women with dense breasts: breast-specific gamma imaging (molecular breast imaging). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:252–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park KS, Chung HW, Yoo YB, Yang JH, Choi N, So Y. Complementary role of semiquantitative analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:690–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bitencourt AG, Graziano L, Osorio CA, Guatelli CS, Souza JA, Mendonca MH, et al. MRI Features of mucinous cancer of the breast: correlation with pathologic findings and other imaging methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:238-46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moon H, Noh WC, Kim HA, et al. The relationship between estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression of breast cancer and the retention index in dual phase (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;50:246–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim SJ, Kim SJ, Kim IJ, Pak K, Kim BS, Shin S. Factors associated with (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in T1 and T2 invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;50:240–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:1245–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Badan GM, Piato S, Roveda DJ, de Faria Castro Fleury E. Predictive values of BI-RADS® magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1701–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuhn KJ, Rapelyea JA, Torrente J, Teal CB, Brem RF. Comparative diagnostic utility of low-dose breast-specific gamma imaging to current clinical standard. Breast J. 2016;22:180–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Konkuk University Medical CenterKonkuk University School of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Konkuk University Medical CenterKonkuk University School of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical CenterKonkuk University School of MedicineSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Research Coordinating CenterKonkuk University Medical CenterSeoulKorea
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul Medical CenterSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations