Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2007, 151(2):209-218 | DOI: 10.5507/bp.2007.036

THE ROLE OF VARIOUS MODALITIES IN BREAST IMAGING

Sachin N. Prasada, Dana Houserkovaa
a Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

Background: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women worldwide. Mammography is considered the "gold standard" in the evaluation of the breast from an imaging perspective. Apart from mammography, ultrasound examination and magnetic resonance imaging are being offered as adjuncts to the preoperative workup. Recently, other new modalities like positron emission tomography, 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography, and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) are also being offered. However, there is still controversy over the most appropriate use of these new modalities. Based on the literature, this review evaluates the role of various modalities used in the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer.

Methods and Results: Based on relevant literatures this article gives an overview of the old and new modalities used in the field of breast imaging. A narrative literature review of all the relevant papers known to the authors was conducted. The search of literatures was done using pubmed and ovid search engines. Additional references were found through bibliography reviews of relevant articles. It was clear that though various new technics and methods have emerged, none have substituted mammography and it is still the only proven screening method for the breast as of date.

Conclusion: From the literature it is clear that apropos modern radiology's impact on diagnosis, staging and patient follow-up, only one imaging technique has had a significant impact on screening asymptomatic individuals for cancer i.e.; low-dose mammography. Mammography is the only screening test proven in breast imaging. Positron emission tomography (PET) also plays an important role in staging breast cancer and monitoring treatment response. As imaging techniques improve, the role of imaging will continue to evolve with the goal remaining a decrease in breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Progress in the development and commercialisation of EIT breast imaging system will definitely help to promote other systems and applications based on the EIT and similar visualization methods. Breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are frequently used adjuncts to mammography in today's clinical practice and these techniques enhance the radiologist's ability to detect cancer and assess disease extent, which is crucial in treatment planning and staging.

Keywords: Mammography, Ultrasonography, MRI, Breast screening, Breast mass, Breast imaging

Received: September 7, 2007; Accepted: November 5, 2007; Published: December 1, 2007  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Prasad, S.N., & Houserkova, D. (2007). THE ROLE OF VARIOUS MODALITIES IN BREAST IMAGING. Biomedical papers151(2), 209-218. doi: 10.5507/bp.2007.036
Download citation

References

  1. National Cancer Institute. SEER 19732001 public-use data. Accessed online October 14, 2004, at: http://seer.cancer.gov/publicdata/.
  2. Madigan MP, Ziegler RG, Benichou J, Byrne C, Hoover RN. Proportion of breast cancer cases in the United States explained by well-established risk factors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:16815. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Boyd NF, Jensen HM, Cooke G, Han HL, Lockwood GA, Miller AB. Mammographic densities and the prevalence and incidence of histological types of benign breast disease. Reference Pathologists of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Eur J Cancer Prev 2000; 9:1524. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Fourteen-gauge ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy of breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20:96772. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Van Ongeval Ch. Department of Radiology, KULeuven, UZ Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. Digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer: an overview. JBR-BTR. 2007 May-Jun; 90(3):1636.
  6. Newcomb PA, Titus-Ernstoff L, Egan KM, Trentham-Dietz A, Baron JA, Storer BE, et al. Postmenopausal estrogen and progestin use in relation to breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002; 11:593600.
  7. Weiss LK, Burkman RT, Cushing-Haugen KL, Voigt LF, Simon MS, Daling JR, et al. Hormone replacement therapy regimens and breast cancer risk (1). Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:114858. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Key TJ, Appleby PN, Reeves GK, Roddam A, Dorgan JF, Longcope C, et al. Body mass index, serum sex hormones, and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:1218 26. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Barton MB, Harris R, Fletcher SW. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How? JAMA 1999; 282:127080. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Campbell HS, Fletcher SW, Pilgrim CA, Morgan TM, Lin S. Improving physicians and nurses clinical breast examination: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 1991; 7:18. Go to original source...
  11. Leichter I, Buchbinder S, Bamberger P, Novak B, Fields S, Lederman R. Quantitative characterization of mass lesions on digitized mammograms for computer-assisted diagnosis. Invest Radiol 2000; 35:36672. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen fi lm vs full-fi eld digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions [published correction appears in Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2388]. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:1697702. Go to original source...
  13. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, DOrsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, et al. Comparison of full-fi eld digital mammography with screenfi lm mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:87380. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifi cations: full-fi eld digital mammography vs screen-fi lm mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:267983. Go to original source...
  15. Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz JS, Langlotz CP. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 1999; 6:38797. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Farewell VT, Bulbrook RD, Hayward JL. Risk factors in breast cancer: A prospective study in the island of Gnernsy, in early diagnosis of Breast cancer. New York: E. Grandmann and L. Beck Gustav Fisher Verlag Stuttgart, 1978: 4351, 1978.
  17. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. Effi cacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:42737. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Baines CJ, Miller AB. Mammography versus clinical examination of the breasts. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; (22):1259. Go to original source...
  19. Kopans DB. What is a useful adjunct to mammography? Radiology 1986; 161: 560561. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Joensuu H, Asola R, Holli K, Kumpulainen E, Nikkanen V, Parvinen LM. Delayed diagnosis and large size of breast cancer after a fl ase negative mammogram. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30:1299 1302. Go to original source...
  21. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Livolsi VA, Troupin RH, Suspicious breast lesion: MRI with radiologic pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 190:485493. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic fi ndings and tumour angiogenesis. Radiology 1996; 200: 639649. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184: 613617. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CD, Freeman AH, Lomas DJ; Warren RM. How reliable is modern breast imaging in diff erentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population? Clin Radiol 1999; 54:67682. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Berg WA, Campassi CI, Ioff e OB. Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 2003; 227:18391. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that infl uence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:16575. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Makes D Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia Ciptomangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta Biomed Imaging Interv J 2005; 1(1):e616
  28. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd DTPA enhancement in breast tumours using a permeability model. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1995; 33:564568. Go to original source...
  29. Muller Schimpfl e M, Ohmenhauser K, Sand J, et al. Dynamic 3D MR mammography: is there a benefi t of sophisticated evaluation of enhancement curves for clinical routine? JMRI 1997; 7:236240. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Herborn CU, Marincek B, Erfmann D, Meuli-Simmen C, Wedler V, Bode-Lesniewska B, et al. Breast augmentation and reconstructive surgery: MR imaging of implant rupture and malignancy. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2198206. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  31. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:90110 Go to original source...
  32. Obdeijn IM, Brouwers-Kuyper EM, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Wiggers T, Oudkerk M. MR imaging-guided sonography followed by fi neneedle aspiration cytology in occult carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:107984. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  33. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, Kaplan JB, Abramson AF, Menell JH, et al. MR imaging fi ndings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:33341. Go to original source...
  34. Kristoff ersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Perbeck L, Bone B. Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesions. Acta Radiol 2002; 43:27581. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  35. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Eff ect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of fi rst screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:38. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  36. Koga S, Nakano S, Honma Y, Ogasawara N. [FDG-PET (positron emission tomography) in the detection of primary breast cancer and lymph nodes involvement]. Nippon Rinsho. 2007 Jun 28; 65 Suppl 6:37984. Japanese.
  37. Ersoy R, Topaloglu O, Aydin C, Dirikoc A, Cakir B. Pituitary metastasis of breast cancer confi rmed by fl uorine-18 fl uorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: a case report. J Endocrinol Invest. 2007 Jun; 30(6):5323. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  38. Hartinger AE, Gagnon H, Guardo R. Accounting for hardware imperfections in EIT image reconstruction algorithms. Physiol Meas. 2007 Jul; 28(7):S1327. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  39. Choi MH, Kao TJ, Isaacson D, Saulnier GJ, Newell JC. A reconstruction algorithm for breast cancer imaging with electrical impedance tomography in mammography geometry. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007; 54(4):70010. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  40. Halter RJ, Hartov A, Paulsen KD. Experimental justifi cation for using 3D conductivity reconstructions in electrical impedance tomography. Physiol Meas. 2007; 28(7):S11527. Epub 2007 Jun 26. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  41. Mital M, Scott EP. Thermal detection of embedded tumors using infrared imaging. J Biomech Eng. 2007 Feb; 129(1):339. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  42. Vincentis GD, Porfi ri LM, Betti M, Filippi L, Remediani S, Santo GD, Zaccagnino P, Felice CD, Pieracci M, Cinti MN, Bennati P, Pellegrini R, Pani R. High-resolution scintimammography helps in diff erentiating benign from malignant fi ndings in scintigraphic hot spots. Phys Med. 2006; 21 Suppl 1:8790. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  43. Gommans GM, van der Zant FM, van Dongen A, Boer RO, Teule GJ, de Waard JW. (99M) Technetium-sestamibi scintimammography in non-palpable breast lesions found on screening X-ray mammography.
  44. Yamamoto A, Fukushima H, Okamura R, Nakamura Y, Morimoto T, Urata Y, Mukaihara S, Hayakawa K.Dynamic helical CT mammography of breast cancer. Radiat Med. 2006; 24(1):3540. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  45. Ternier F, Houvenaeghel G, Lecrivain F, Brigand BL, Margain D, Brunelle S, Stefano DD.Computed tomography in suspected local breast cancer recurrence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Dec; 100(3):24754. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  46. Nakano S, Sakamoto H, Ohtsuka M, Mibu A, Sakata H, Yamamoto M. Evaluation and indications of ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted core needle breast biopsy. Breast Cancer. 2007; 14 (3):2926. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  47. Weber WP, Zanetti R, Langer I, Dellas S, Zuber M, Moch H, Remmel E, Oertli D, Wight E, Marti WR. Mammotome: less invasive than ABBI with similar accuracy for early breast cancer detection. World J Surg. 2005; 29(4):4959. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...