Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Dedicated Breast CT: Screening Technique of the Future

  • Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mammography has been the mainstay of breast imaging for over four decades and is the only screening modality demonstrated to reduce mortality from breast cancer. The known limitations of mammography have prompted the development of newer imaging techniques with three-dimensional capabilities such as dedicated breast computed tomography (bCT). Several studies have shown the superiority of bCT in detection of breast masses, when compared to 2-D mammography. Malignant micro-calcification lesions can be detected and characterized by bCT. With further development of higher resolution detectors, bCT should become a modality for large population screening. Contrast-enhanced bCT (CE-bCT) adds improved specificity over mammography and may be utilized as an imaging biomarker in the emerging era of precision medicine.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH-H, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):658–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen THH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42(5):793–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1):55–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ, National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in Netherlands Study G. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(16):3517–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Feig S. Cost-effectiveness of mammography, MRI, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;48(5):879–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chubak J, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA, Elmore JG. Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms. Med Care. 2010;48(9):815–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(2):75–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Aminololama-Shakeri S, Khatri VP. Emerging modalities in breast cancer imaging. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2014;23(4):735–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Connell AM, Karellas A, Vedantham S. The potential role of dedicated 3D breast CT as a diagnostic tool: review and early clinical examples. Breast J. 2014;20(6):592–605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Ray S, et al. Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience 1. Radiology. 2010;256(3):714–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang CH, Sibala JL, Fritz SL, Gallagher JH, Dwyer 3rd SJ, Templeton AW. Computed tomographic evaluation of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978;131(3):459–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ning R, Conover D, Yu Y, et al. A novel cone beam breast CT scanner: system evaluation. Medical Imaging: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2007; p. 651030–9.

  18. Sarno A, Mettivier G, Russo P. Dedicated breast computed tomography: basic aspects. Med Phys. 2015;42(6):2786–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boone JM, Nelson TR, Lindfors KK, Seibert JA. Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology. 2001;221(3):657–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boone JM, Kwan AL, Seibert JA, Shah N, Lindfors KK, Nelson TR. Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT. Med Phys. 2005;32(12):3767–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Connell AM, Kawakyu-O’Connor D. Dedicated cone-beam breast computed tomography and diagnostic mammography: comparison of radiation dose, patient comfort, and qualitative review of imaging findings in BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2012;2:7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. • Kuzmiak CM, Cole EB, Zeng D, Tuttle LA, Steed D, Pisano ED. Dedicated three-dimensional breast computed tomography: lesion characteristic perception by radiologists. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2016;6:14. Reader study of comparing breast CT and digital mammography in assessing reader confidence when characterizing twenty-four BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.

  24. • Zhao B, Zhang X, Cai W, Conover D, Ning R. Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):48–53. A comparison study of breast CT and digital mammography evaluating 85 breast masses showing improvement in performance if CT over mammography.

  25. Chang CH, Sibala JL, Gallagher JH, et al. Computed tomography of the breast. A preliminary report. Radiology. 1977;124(3):827–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. • Aminololama-Shakeri S, Abbey CK, Gazi P, et al. Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(1):297–303. Reader study showing improved CT performance in differentiating benign and malignant micro-calcifications when compared to mammography.

  27. Sardanelli F, Calabrese M, Zandrino F, et al. Dynamic helical CT of breast tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(3):398–407.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Inoue M, Sano T, Watai R, et al. Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(3):679–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aminololama-Shakeri S, Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Boone JM. Detection of DCIS with dedicated breast CT. Annual RSNA Meeting 2011.

  30. Vedantham S, O’Connell AM, Shi L, Karellas A, Huston AJ, Skinner KA, et al. Dedicated breast CT: feasibility for monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Aminololama-Shakeri S, Nosratieh A, Lindfors KK, Boone JM. Is contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT superior to DBTor DM in the evaluation of BIRADS 4 and 5 breast lesions? Annual RSNA Meeting. Chicago, IL; 2013.

  32. Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Ganott MA, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced cone beam CT to CE-MRI in the categorization of breast lesions. Annual RSNA Meeting. Chicao, IL; 2011.

  33. Chen L, Abbey CK, Nosratieh A, Lindfors KK, Boone JM. Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies. Med Phys. 2012;39(3):1435–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Abbey CK, Nosrateih A, Sohl-Dickstein J, Yang K, Boone JM. Non-Gaussian statistical properties of breast images. Med Phys. 2012;39(11):7121–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of California Davis, 4860 Y Street, Suite 3100, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA

    Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri, Jonathan B. Hargreaves, John M. Boone & Karen K. Lindfors

Authors
  1. Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan B. Hargreaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. John M. Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen K. Lindfors
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri reports grants from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging Bioengineering and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Jonathan B. Hargreaves declares that he has no conflict of interest.

John M. Boone reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the other from Isotropic Imaging, outside the submitted work, has a patent breast CT licensed, and a patent breast CT/beam shaping filter pending.

Karen K. Lindfors reports grants from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging Bioengineering and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Screening and Imaging

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aminololama-Shakeri, S., Hargreaves, J.B., Boone, J.M. et al. Dedicated Breast CT: Screening Technique of the Future. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 8, 242–247 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0227-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0227-2

Keywords