Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 5195–5202 | Cite as

Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy

  • Eun Kyoung Choi
  • Jooyeon Jamie Im
  • Chang Suk Park
  • Yong-An Chung
  • Kijun Kim
  • Jin Kyoung OhEmail author
Breast

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate which feature of the breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) uptake in women who were recently diagnosed with breast cancer was associated with malignancy.

Methods

Data on 231 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who underwent preoperative BSGI were retrospectively reviewed. Feature analysis was done by classifying BSGI uptake into mass, non-mass, or focus/foci. Descriptors for mass, non-mass, or focus/foci were shape, distribution, number, and intensity. BSGI features of known malignancies and lesions that were additionally found by BSGI were correlated with mammographic breast density, histology, hormonal status, and clinical follow-up data obtained over at least 2 years.

Results

Among 372 breast lesions from 231 patients, 241 malignancies had been pathologically confirmed prior to BSGI and 131 additional lesions were found on BSGI. Irregular shape was more predictive of malignancy than oval shape (p=0.004) in mass uptake. Linear/ductal distribution was more predictive of malignancy than focal, regional, and segmental distribution (p<0.05) in non-mass uptake. Mammographic breast density was not associated with BSGI features. The lesion to normal ratio (LNR) was higher in the postmenopausal patients than that in the premenopausal patients (p=0.003).

Conclusions

The feature analysis of radiotracer uptake in BSGI is useful in predicting whether breast lesions are malignant or benign.

Key Points

• The feature analysis of BSGI uptake is useful in predicting malignancy.

• Irregular shape was predictive of malignancy in mass uptake.

• Linear/ductal distribution was predictive of malignancy in non-mass uptake.

Keywords

Breast Neoplasms Radionuclide Imaging Molecular Imaging Diagnostic Imaging Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi 

Abbreviations

BI-RADS

Breast imaging reporting and data system

BSGI

Breast-specific gamma imaging

CC

Craniocaudal

DCIS

Ductal carcinoma in situ

IDC

Invasive ductal carcinoma

LNR

Lesion to normal ratio

MBI

Molecular breast imaging

MLO

Mediolateral oblique

PET

Positron emission tomography

ROC

Receiver operating characteristics

ROI

Region of interest

Tc-99m

MIBI Tc-99m sestamibi

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by the Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (NRF-2015M3C7A1064832).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jin Kyoung Oh.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Taillefer R (1999) The role of 99mTc-sestamibi and other conventional radiopharmaceuticals in breast cancer diagnosis. Semin Nucl Med 29:16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Villanueva-Meyer J, Leonard MH Jr, Briscoe E et al (1996) Mammoscintigraphy with technetium-99m-sestamibi in suspected breast cancer. J Nucl Med 37:926–930PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hruska CB (2017) Molecular Breast Imaging for Screening in Dense Breasts: State of the Art and Future Directions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rechtman LR, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman JH et al (2014) Breast-specific gamma imaging for the detection of breast cancer in dense versus nondense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O'Connor MK (2011) Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology 258:106–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hruska CB, Conners AL, Jones KN et al (2015) Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:1345–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bassett L, Berg W, Feig S (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W, Merritt C, Rubin E (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: ultrasound. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ikeda D, Hylton N, Kuhl C (2003) BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging. American College of Radiology Reston, VA, 1–114Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA (2011) Interpretation of positron emission mammography: feature analysis and rates of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:956–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conners AL, Hruska CB, Tortorelli CL et al (2012) Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Conners AL, Maxwell RW, Tortorelli CL et al (2012) Gamma camera breast imaging lexicon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W767–W774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meissnitzer T, Seymer A, Keinrath P et al (2015) Added value of semi-quantitative breast-specific gamma imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions compared to mammography, ultrasound and 3-T MRI. Br J Radiol 88:20150147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan H, Jiang L, Gu Y et al (2014) Visual and semi-quantitative analyses of dual-phase breast-specific gamma imaging with Tc-99m-sestamibi in detecting primary breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med 28:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoon HJ, Kim Y, Chang KT, Kim BS (2015) Prognostic value of semi-quantitative tumor uptake on Tc-99m sestamibi breast-specific gamma imaging in invasive ductal breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med 29:553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA (2005) BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1260–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC et al (1999) Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 213:889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cole-Beuglet C, Soriano RZ, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB (1983) Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonomammography correlated with pathology in 122 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 140:369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman J, Morris E, Dershaw D (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T et al (2010) Non-mass-like enhancement on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. Eur J Radiol 75:e126–e132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morakkabati-Spitz N, Leutner C, Schild H, Traeber F, Kuhl C (2005) Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Eur Radiol 15:2010–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoon HJ, Kim Y, Lee JE, Kim BS (2015) Background 99mTc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile uptake of breast-specific gamma imaging in relation to background parenchymal enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 25:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delmon-Moingeon LI, Piwnica-Worms D, Van den Abbeele AD, Holman BL, Davison A, Jones AG (1990) Uptake of the cation hexakis(2-methoxyisobutylisonitrile)-technetium-99m by human carcinoma cell lines in vitro. Cancer Res 50:2198–2202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scopinaro F, Schillaci O, Scarpini M et al (1994) Technetium-99m sestamibi: an indicator of breast cancer invasiveness. Eur J Nucl Med 21:984–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Freitas JE, Freitas AE (1994) Thyroid and parathyroid imaging. Semin Nucl Med 24:234–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V (2008) Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 247:651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huang YT, Cheung YC, Lo YF, Ueng SH, Kuo WL, Chen SC (2011) MRI findings of cancers preoperatively diagnosed as pure DCIS at core needle biopsy. Acta Radiol 52:1064–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee CW, Wu HK, Lai HW et al (2016) Preoperative clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging features can predict ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive components. Eur J Radiol 85:780–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berger KL, Nicholson SA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA (2000) FDG PET evaluation of mucinous neoplasms: correlation of FDG uptake with histopathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1005–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumar R, Rani N, Patel C, Basu S, Alavi A (2009) False-Negative and False-Positive Results in FDG-PET and PET/CT in Breast Cancer. PET Clin 4:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miglioretti DL, Walker R, Weaver DL et al (2011) Accuracy of screening mammography varies by week of menstrual cycle. Radiology 258:372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Giess CS, Yeh ED, Raza S, Birdwell RL (2014) Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging: normal patterns, diagnostic challenges, and potential for false-positive and false-negative interpretation. Radiographics 34:234–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eun Kyoung Choi
    • 1
  • Jooyeon Jamie Im
    • 1
  • Chang Suk Park
    • 1
  • Yong-An Chung
    • 1
  • Kijun Kim
    • 1
  • Jin Kyoung Oh
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations