Clinical Results with Ultrasound Computed Tomography of the Breast

  • Michael AndréEmail author
  • James Wiskin
  • David Borup


Although the science and engineering of ultrasound computed tomography (USCT) has been explored for over four decades, there have been relatively few instances of a system being developed and applied to patients. Nonetheless, there have been notable results from the clinical setting, especially recently, that illustrate how a successful USCT scanner may provide significant advances to women’s health. For practical anatomical reasons, this work has almost exclusively addressed imaging of the female breast. Other quantitative ultrasound techniques have been applied to characterizing the female breast, including quantitative backscatter analysis, shear wave speed, computer-aided diagnosis, etc., but USCT is the focus of this chapter. We highlight the evolution of scanner design and image reconstruction by presenting key results from patient measurements by the major researchers in the field. There has been steady progress in electronics, parallel processors, reconstruction algorithms, understanding of the physical properties of breast tissue and a resurgence of interest in the medical community for dedicated breast ultrasound systems. It is understood today that USCT may be able to contribute in many aspects of the medical management of breast disease including detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.


Sound Speed Dense Breast Architectural Distortion Reflection Tomography Breast Ultrasound 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We gratefully acknowledge the support and contributions of Melissa Ledgerwood, B.S., Melanie Aiken, B.A., Laura Brogoch, B.S., Karleen Callahan, Ph.D. and the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute SBIR Program and Academic-Industry Partnership Program.


  1. Abramowitz A, Stegun I (1965) Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover Publications, New York, p 363Google Scholar
  2. ACR (2011) Practice guideline for the performance of a breast ultrasound examination. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. American Cancer Society (2011). Breast cancer facts & figures 2011–2012. American Cancer Society, Inc, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  4. Andre MP, Galperin M, Berry A, Taylor A, Ojeda-Fournier H, O’Boyle M, Olson L, Comstock C (2011) Performance of a method to standardize breast ultrasound interpretation using image processing and case-based reasoning. Acoust Imaging 30:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. André MP, Martin PJ, Otto GP, Olson LK, Barrett TK, Spivey BA, Palmer DA (1995) A new consideration of diffraction computed tomography for breast imaging: Studies in phantoms and patients. Acoust Imaging 21:379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. André MP, Janée HS, Otto GP, Martin PJ, Jones P (1996) Reduction of phase aberration in a diffraction tomography system for breast imaging. Acoust Imaging 22:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. André M, Janee H, Otto G, Martin P (1997) High speed data acquisition in a diffraction tomography system with large-scale toroidal arrays. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 8(1):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. André M, Barker C, Sekhon N, Wiskin J, Borup D, Callahan K (2008) Pre-clinical experience with full-wave inverse scattering for breast imaging: sound speed sensitivity. Acoust Imaging 29:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker J, Kornguth P, Soo M et al (1999) Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR 172:1621–1625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berg W, Blume J, Cormack J et al (2006) Operator dependence of physician performed whole breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 241:355–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berg W, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ et al (2012a) Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: The BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 262(2):435–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berg W, Zhang Z et al (2012b) Detection of Breast Cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening mri to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307(13):1394–1404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borup DT, Johnson SA, Kim WW, Berggren MJ (1992) Nonperturbative diffraction tomography via Gauss-Newton iteration applied to the scattering integral equation. Ultrason Imaging 14(1):69–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Brogoch L, André M, Ledgerwood M, Ojeda-Fournier H et al (2010) Reader variability and predictive value of breast imaging reporting and data system descriptors for lesions in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 29:S47Google Scholar
  16. Callahan KS, Borup DT, Johnson SA, Wiskin J, Parisky Y (2007) Transmission breast ultrasound imaging: representative case studies of speed of sound and attenuation of sound computed tomographic images. Am J Clin Oncol 30(4):458–459Google Scholar
  17. Carson PL, Fenster A (2009) Anniversary paper: evolution of ultrasound physics and the role of medical physicists and the AAPM and its journal in that evolution. Med Phys 36(2):411–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carson P, Meyer C, Scherzinger A, Oughton T (1981) Breast imaging in coronal planes with simultaneous pulse-echo and transmission ultrasound. Science 214:1141–1143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carson PL, Scherzinger AL, Bland PH, Meyer CR, Schmitt RM, Chenevert TL, Bookstein FL, Bylski DI, Silver TM (1983) Advanced ultrasonic imaging for breast cancer diagnosis. In: Jellins J, Kobayashi T (eds) Ultrasonic Examination of the Breast, pp 187–199Google Scholar
  20. Devaney A (1982a) Inversion formula for inverse scattering within the Born approximation. Opt Lett 7:111–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Devaney A (1982b) A filtered backpropagation algorithm for diffraction tomography. Ultrason Imaging 4:336–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Duric N, Littrup P, Babkin A, Chambers D, Azevedo S, Kalinin A, Pevzner R, Tokarev M, Holsapple E, Rama O, Duncan R (2005) Development of ultrasound tomography for breast imaging: technical assessment. Med Phys 32(5):1375–1386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duric N, Littrup PJ, Rama O, Holsapple ET (2006) Computerized ultrasound risk evaluation CURE: first clinical results. Acoust Imaging 28:177–185Google Scholar
  24. Duric N, Littrup P, Poulo L, Babkin A et al (2007) Detection of breast cancer with ultrasound tomography: first results with the computed ultrasound risk evaluation prototype. Med Phys 34(2):773–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glover GH (1977) Computerized time-of-flight ultrasonic tomography for breast examination. Ultrasound Med Biol 3(2–3):117–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glover G, Sharp J (1977) Reconstruction of ultrasound propagation speed distributions in soft tissue: time of flight tomography. IEEE Trans Sonics Ultrason SU-24:229–234Google Scholar
  27. Greenleaf J, Bahn R (1981) Clinical imaging with transmissive ultrasonic computerized tomography. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng BME-28(2):231Google Scholar
  28. Greenleaf J, Johnson S, Lee SL et al (1974) Algebraic reconstruction of spatial distributions of acoustic absorption in tissue from their two-dimensional acoustic projections. Acoust Holography 5:591–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenleaf J, Johnson S, Samayoa W, Duck F (1975) Algebraic reconstruction of spatial distributions of acoustic absorption in tissue from their two-dimensional acoustic projections. Acoust Holography 6:71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenleaf JF, Johnson SA, Lent AH (1978) Measurement of spatial distribution of refractive index in tissues by ultrasonic computer assisted tomography. Ultrasound Med Biol 3(4):327–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hiller D, Ermert H (1980) Tomographic reconstruction of B-scan images. Acoust Imaging 10:347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hong A, Rosen E, Soo M et al (2005) BI-RADS for sonography: Positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR 184(4):1260–1265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M et al (eds) (2011) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2008. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, based on Nov 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site
  34. Johnson S, Abbott T, Bell R, Berggren M, Borup D et al (2007) Non-invasive breast tissue characterization using ultrasound speed and attenuation: in vivo validation. Acoust Imaging 28:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaveh M, Mueller RK, Rylander R, Coulter TR, Soumekh M (1980) Experimental results in ultrasonic diffraction tomography. Acoust Imaging 9:433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee S.-J. (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742Google Scholar
  37. Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse J (2002) 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 225:165–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kwak Y, Kim E, Park H et al (2006) Application of the breast imaging reporting and data system final assessment system in sonography of palpable breast lesions and reconsideration of the modified triple test. J Ultrasound Med 25(10):1255–1261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CB, Rubin E (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system BI-RADS: ultrasound. In: D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM et al (eds) Breast imaging reporting and data system, 1st edn. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  40. Mueller RK, Kaveh M, Wade G (1979) Acoustical reconstructive tomography and applications to ultrasonics. Proc IEEE 67:567–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scherzinger AL, Belgam RA, Carson PL, Meyer CR et al (1989) Assessment of ultrasonic computed tomography in symptomatic breast patients by discriminant analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 15:21–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shetty M, Shah Y, Sharman R (2003) Prospective evaluation of combined mammographic and sonographic assessment in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 22(3):263–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Silverstein M, Lagios M, Recht A et al (2005) Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Amer Coll Surg 201(4):586–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stavros AT (2004) Breast ultrasound. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York, pp 1–1015Google Scholar
  45. Stavros A, Thickman D, Rapp C et al (1995) Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196(1):123–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiskin J, Borup D, Johnson S et al (2007) Full wave, non-linear, inverse scattering: high resolution quantitative breast tissue tomography. Acoust Imaging 28:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiskin J, Borup D, Johnson S (2011a) Inverse scattering theory. Acoust Imaging 30:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiskin J, Borup D, André M et al (2011b) Inverse scattering results. Acoust Imaging 30:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wiskin J, Borup D, Johnson S, Berggren M (2012) Nonlinear inverse scattering: high resolution quantitative breast tissue tomography. J Acoust Soc Am 131(5):3802–3813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolf E (1969) Three-dimensional structure determination of semi-transparent objects from holographic data. Opt Comm 1:153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology, Physics & Engineering Division 114VA Healthcare/University of California, San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.CVUS, LLCSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations