Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emerging Technologies in Breast Imaging

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

Abstract

Mammographic screening has been validated as an effective way to decrease breast cancer deaths, responsible for a 30–40 % mortality reduction in participating populations. However, despite its success, it remains an imperfect tool, especially in certain subsegments of patients. Some cohorts for which mammographic evaluation proves less sensitive include women with dense breasts, women with genetic predisposition to breast cancers, and women with prior history of breast cancer. As a result, there is impetus to develop and refine new screening and diagnostic technologies that address the limitations of mammography. These include advanced mammographic applications such as digital tomosynthesis, stereoscopic mammography, and contrast-enhanced digital mammography; dedicated breast CT; advanced applications of breast ultrasound and MRI; dedicated breast molecular imaging; and optical imaging. We describe these evolving technologies and outline their strengths and weaknesses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205(2):399–406.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. FDA. Selenia Dimensions 3D System- P080003. 2011 [updated 20 May 2013; cited 05 Jun 2013]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm246400.htm.

  3. Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ, Berclaz G, Ciriolo M, Buser K, et al. Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):226–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1019):e1074–82.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, van Tinteren H, Rutgers EJ, Muller SH, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):16–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(7):1545–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266(1):104–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(3):616–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):586–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton Jr R. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, Henrichsen TL, Bendel EC, Brandt SR, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):291–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology. 2012;262(1):61–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology. 2013;266(1):89–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology. 2012;262(3):788–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):320–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. FDA. Selenia Dimensions 3D System – P080003/S001 2013 [updated 23 May 2013; cited 20 Jun 2013]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm353734.htm.

  18. D’Orsi CJ, Getty DJ, Pickett RM, Sechopoulos I, Newell MS, Gundry KR, et al. Stereoscopic digital mammography: improved specificity and reduced rate of recall in a prospective clinical trial. Radiology. 2013;266(1):81–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):565–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lewin JM, Niklason L. Advanced applications of digital mammography: tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol. 2007;42(4):243–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266(3):743–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, Fallenberg EM, Jong RA, Koomen M, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(3):R94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak RS, Danjoux NM, Gunesekara A, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003;228(3):842–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Taupitz M, Bick U, Winzer KJ, Huttner C, et al. Use of iodine-based contrast media in digital full-field mammography–initial experience. Rofo. 2003;175(3):342–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S, Fallenberg EM, Fischer T, Bick U, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78(1):112–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, Mathieu MC, Rochard F, Opolon P, et al. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(5):W528–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dodd GD. Present status of thermography, ultrasound and mammography in breast cancer detection. Cancer. 1977;39(6 Suppl):2796–805.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kobayashi T, Takatani O, Hattori N, Kimura K. Differential diagnosis of breast tumors. The sensitivity graded method ultrasonotomography and clinical evaluation of its diagnostic accuracy. Cancer. 1974;33(4):940–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology. 2007;244(1):87–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stavros AT. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Williams; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tohno E, Ueno E, Watanabe H. Ultrasound screening of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2009;16(1):18–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med. 2006;111(3):440–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kelly KM, Richwald GA. Automated whole-breast ultrasound: advancing the performance of breast cancer screening. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011;32(4):273–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang HY, Jiang YX, Zhu QL, Zhang J, Dai Q, Liu H, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):3190–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):734–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239(2):341–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):23–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Regner DM, Hesley GK, Hangiandreou NJ, Morton MJ, Nordland MR, Meixner DD, et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging–clinical experience of multiple observers. Radiology. 2006;238(2):425–37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ, Schafer FK, Svensson WE, Hooley RJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology. 2012;262(2):435–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kashikura Y, Nakayama R, Hizukuri A, Noro A, Nohara Y, Nakamura T, et al. Improved differential diagnosis of breast masses on ultrasonographic images with a computer-aided diagnosis scheme for determining histological classifications. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(4):471–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Newell MS, D’Orsi CJ. Dedicated breast computed tomography: the optimal cross-sectional imaging solution? Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48(5):1043–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kalender WA. Concepts for high-resolution CT of the breast. In: Digital mammography. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p. 421–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. O’Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y, Seifert P, Logan-Young W, Lin CF, et al. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):496–509.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, Yang K, Kwan AL, Miller DF. Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2008;246(3):725–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Ray S, Huang SY, Beckett LA, Monsky WL, et al. Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2010;256(3):714–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Kalender WA, Beister M, Boone JM, Kolditz D, Vollmar SV, Weigel MC. High-resolution spiral CT of the breast at very low dose: concept and feasibility considerations. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(1):1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. McKinley RL, Tornai MP, Tuttle LA, et al. Development and initial demonstration of a low-dose dedicated fully 3-D CT system. In: Maidment ADA, Bakic P, Gavenonis D, editors. Breast imaging. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 442–9.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tozaki M, Fukuma E. 1H MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: are they useful tools for characterizing breast lesions before biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(3):840–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bolan PJ, Meisamy S, Baker EH, Lin J, Emory T, Nelson M, et al. In vivo quantification of choline compounds in the breast with 1H MR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2003;50(6):1134–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Liberman L, Thakur SB, Moskowitz C, et al. Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. Radiology. 2006;239(3):686–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dorrius MD, Pijnappel RM, van der Weide Jansen MC, Jansen L, Kappert P, Oudkerk M, et al. The added value of quantitative multi-voxel MR spectroscopy in breast magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):915–22.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(7):1307–18.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Meisamy S, Bolan PJ, Baker EH, Bliss RL, Gulbahce E, Everson LI, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of locally advanced breast cancer: predicting response with in vivo (1)H MR spectroscopy–a pilot study at 4 T. Radiology. 2004;233(2):424–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tozaki M, Sakamoto M, Oyama Y, Maruyama K, Fukuma E. Predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer with quantitative 1H MR spectroscopy using the external standard method. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(4):895–902.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Razek NMA. Role of proton MR spectroscopy in high field magnet (3T) in diagnosis of indeterminate breast masses (BIRDS 3 & 4). Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2012;43(4):657–62.

    Google Scholar 

  58. McLaughlin R, Hylton N. MRI in breast cancer therapy monitoring. NMR Biomed. 2011;24(6):712–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF, Allain MD, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(6):1664–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Marini C, Iacconi C, Giannelli M, Cilotti A, Moretti M, Bartolozzi C. Quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesion. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(10):2646–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Kurland BF, Eby PR, White SW, Lehman CD. Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to conventional breast MRI for improved positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1716–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pinker K, Bickel H, Helbich TH, Gruber S, Dubsky P, Pluschnig U, et al. Combined contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging reading adapted to the “Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System” for multiparametric 3-T imaging of breast lesions. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(7):1791–802.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Tozaki M, Oyama Y, Fukuma E. Preliminary study of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy after the first cycle in breast cancer: comparison of 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy with diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(2):101–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Manton DJ, Chaturvedi A, Hubbard A, Lind MJ, Lowry M, Maraveyas A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: early response prediction with quantitative MR imaging and spectroscopy. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(3):427–35.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Nilsen L, Fangberget A, Geier O, Olsen DR, Seierstad T. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for pretreatment prediction and monitoring of treatment response of patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(3):354–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Mori N, Ota H, Mugikura S, Takasawa C, Tominaga J, Ishida T, et al. Detection of invasive components in cases of breast ductal carcinoma in situ on biopsy by using apparent diffusion coefficient MR parameters. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(10):2705–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kamitani T, Hatakenaka M, Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Fujita N, Jinnouchi M, et al. Detection of axillary node metastasis using diffusion-weighted MRI in breast cancer. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(1):56–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Luo N, Su D, Jin G, Liu L, Zhu X, Xie D, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio between axillary lymph node with primary tumor to detect nodal metastasis in breast cancer patients. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38(4):824–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Koo HR, Cho N, Song IC, Kim H, Chang JM, Yi A, et al. Correlation of perfusion parameters on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(1):145–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Rahbar H, Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Thursten B, Lehman CD. Clinical and technical considerations for high quality breast MRI at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(4):778–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Brem RF, Rechtman LR. Nuclear medicine imaging of the breast: a novel, physiologic approach to breast cancer detection and diagnosis. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48(5):1055–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Taillefer R. Clinical applications of 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35(2):100–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Brem RF, Fishman M, Rapelyea JA. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol. 2007;14(8):945–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Brem RF, Ioffe M, Rapelyea JA, Yost KG, Weigert JM, Bertrand ML, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):379–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 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(3):651–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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(1):W69–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sun Y, Wei W, Yang HW, Liu JL. Clinical usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality to mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(3):450–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O’Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011;258(1):106–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kim BS, Moon BI, Cha ES. A comparative study of breast-specific gamma imaging with the conventional imaging modality in breast cancer patients with dense breasts. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26(10):823–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Spanu A, Sanna D, Chessa F, Cottu P, Manca A, Madeddu G. Breast scintigraphy with breast-specific gamma-camera in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: a correlation with mammography and histologic subtype. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(10):1528–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Brem RF, Petrovitch I, Rapelyea JA, Young H, Teal C, Kelly T. Breast-specific gamma imaging with 99mTc-Sestamibi and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer–a comparative study. Breast J. 2007;13(5):465–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kim BS. Usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality in breast cancer patients with dense breast: a comparative study with MRI. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26(2):131–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. O’Connor MK, Li H, Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Clancy CB, Vetter RJ. Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast. Med Phys. 2010;37(12):6187–98.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257(1):246–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480–508.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE, The J, Velasquez MV, Kahn S, et al. Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(1):23–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Umutlu L, Koeninger A, Freudenberg LS, Hauth EA, et al. Breast cancer staging in a single session: whole-body PET/CT mammography. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(8):1215–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Choi YJ, Shin YD, Kang YH, Lee MS, Lee MK, Cho BS, et al. The effects of preoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients in comparison to the conventional imaging study. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15(4):441–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(20):3495–502.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Comparison of FDG PET and MRI for evaluating the tumor extent of breast cancer and the impact of FDG PET on the systemic staging and prognosis of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer. 2009;16(2):97–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Fuster D, Duch J, Paredes P, Velasco M, Munoz M, Santamaria G, et al. Preoperative staging of large primary breast cancer with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional imaging procedures. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(29):4746–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Segaert I, Mottaghy F, Ceyssens S, De Wever W, Stroobants S, Van Ongeval C, et al. Additional value of PET-CT in staging of clinical stage IIB and III breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16(6):617–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Cooper KL, Harnan S, Meng Y, Ward SE, Fitzgerald P, Papaioannou D, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) for assessment of axillary lymph node status in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EurJ Surg Oncol. 2011;37(3):187–98.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Gil-Rendo A, Martinez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Beorlegui C, Rodriguez-Spiteri N. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(2):166–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Shen C, Kalker T, Kotzerke J, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(10):1317–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, Schelling M, Weber W, Janicke F, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(1):9–16.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Shimoda W, Hayashi M, Murakami K, Oyama T, Sunagawa M. The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14(3):260–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Ikenaga N, Otomo N, Toyofuku A, Ueda Y, Toyoda K, Hayashi T, et al. Standardized uptake values for breast carcinomas assessed by fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography correlate with prognostic factors. Am Surg. 2007;73(11):1151–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, Porcher R, Espie M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(3):426–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Mavi A, Cermik TF, Urhan M, Puskulcu H, Basu S, Yu JQ, et al. The effects of estrogen, progesterone, and C-erbB-2 receptor states on 18F-FDG uptake of primary breast cancer lesions. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(8):1266–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Inoue T, Yutani K, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Shiba E, Noguchi S. Preoperative evaluation of prognosis in breast cancer patients by [(18)F]2-Deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004;130(5):273–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, Mavi A, Cermik T, Czerniecki B, et al. Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer. 2008;112(5):995–1000.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98(3):267–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. van der Hoeven JJ, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Comans EF, Boom RP, van Geldere D, et al. 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in staging of locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(7):1253–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Aukema TS, Rutgers EJ, Vogel WV, Teertstra HJ, Oldenburg HS, Vrancken Peeters MT, et al. The role of FDG PET/CT in patients with locoregional breast cancer recurrence: a comparison to conventional imaging techniques. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(4):387–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, 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(4):309–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1666–75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, Kang KW, Lee SM, Han W, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast. 2012;21(1):66–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Perrier ND, Morton K, Lesko NM, Bergman S, et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(1):86–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS, Baker JA, Coleman RE. Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;234(2):527–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Tafra L, Cheng Z, Uddo J, Lobrano MB, Stein W, Berg WA, et al. Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2005;190(4):628–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258(1):59–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, 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(1):219–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Cutler M. Transillumination of the breast. Ann Surg. 1931;93(1):223–34.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Sickles EA. Breast cancer detection with transillumination and mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984;142(4):841–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Leff DR, Warren OJ, Enfield LC, Gibson A, Athanasiou T, Patten DK, et al. Diffuse optical imaging of the healthy and diseased breast: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(1):9–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Soliman H, Gunasekara A, Rycroft M, Zubovits J, Dent R, Spayne J, et al. Functional imaging using diffuse optical spectroscopy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in women with locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(9):2605–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Poellinger A, Persigehl T, Mahler M, Bahner M, Ponder SL, Diekmann F, et al. Near-infrared imaging of the breast using omocianine as a fluorescent dye: results of a placebo-controlled, clinical, multicenter trial. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(11):697–704.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. van de Ven S, Wiethoff A, Nielsen T, Brendel B, van der Voort M, Nachabe R, et al. A novel fluorescent imaging agent for diffuse optical tomography of the breast: first clinical experience in patients. Mol Imaging Biol. 2010;12(3):343–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Jose I, Deodhar KD, Desai UB, Bhattacharjee S. Early detection of breast cancer: synthesis and characterization of novel target specific NIR-fluorescent estrogen conjugate for molecular optical imaging. J Fluoresc. 2011;21(3):1171–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. van de Ven SM, Elias SG, Chan CT, Miao Z, Cheng Z, De A, et al. Optical imaging with her2-targeted affibody molecules can monitor hsp90 treatment response in a breast cancer xenograft mouse model. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(4):1073–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Shalviri A. Evaluation of new bi-functional terpolymeric nanoparticles for simultaneous in vivo optical imaging and chemotherapy of breast cancer. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2012;2(6):437–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30345, USA

    Mary S. Newell MD & Anna I. Holbrook MD

Authors
  1. Mary S. Newell MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna I. Holbrook MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary S. Newell MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Woman's Hospital of TexasWomen's Department of Radiology,, Baylor College of Medicine, Centre for Breast Care and MRI., Houston, Texas, USA

    Mahesh K Shetty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Newell, M.S., Holbrook, A.I. (2015). Emerging Technologies in Breast Imaging. In: Shetty, M. (eds) Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1267-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1267-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1266-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1267-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation