Downgrading of Breast Masses Suspicious for Cancer by Using Optoacoustic Breast Imaging
Menezes, Gisela L G; Pijnappel, Ruud M; Meeuwis, Carla; Bisschops, Robertus; Veltman, Jeroen; Lavin, Philip T; van de Vijver, Marc J; Mann, Ritse M
(2018) Radiology, volume 288, issue 2, pp. 355 - 365
(Article)
Abstract
Purpose To assess the ability of optoacoustic (OA) ultrasonography (US) to help correctly downgrade benign masses classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4a and 4b to BI-RADS 3 or 2. Materials and Methods OA/US technology uses laser light to detect relative amounts of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin
... read more
in and around suspicious breast masses. In this prospective, multicenter study, results of 209 patients with 215 breast masses classified as BI-RADS 4a or 4b at US are reported. Patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2016. Masses were first evaluated with US with knowledge of previous clinical information and imaging results, and from this information a US imaging-based probability of malignancy (POM) and BI-RADS category were assigned to each mass. The same masses were then re-evaluated at OA/US. During the OA/US evaluation, radiologists scored five OA/US features, and then reassigned an OA/US-based POM and BI-RADS category for each mass. BI-RADS downgrade and upgrade percentages at OA/US were assessed by using a weighted sum of the five OA feature scores. Results At OA/US, 47.9% (57 of 119; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.57) of benign masses classified as BI-RADS 4a and 11.1% (three of 27; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.28) of masses classified as BI-RADS 4b were correctly downgraded to BI-RADS 3 or 2. Two of seven malignant masses classified as BI-RADS 4a at US were incorrectly downgraded, and one of 60 malignant masses classified as BI-RADS 4b at US was incorrectly downgraded for a total of 4.5% (three of 67; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.13) false-negative findings. Conclusion At OA/US, benign masses classified as BI-RADS 4a could be downgraded in BI-RADS category, which would potentially decrease biopsies negative for cancer and short-interval follow-up examinations, with the limitation that a few masses may be inappropriately downgraded.
show less
Download/Full Text
Keywords: Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging, Breast/diagnostic imaging, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Multimodal Imaging/methods, Photoacoustic Techniques/methods, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Ultrasonography, Mammary/methods, Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Multicenter Study, Journal Article
ISSN: 0033-8419
Publisher: Radiological Society of North America Inc.
Note: Funding Information: From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, E01.132, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands (G.L.G.M., R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands (C.M.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.B.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); Boston Biostatistics Research Foundation, Framingham, Mass (P.T.L.); Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (M.J.v.d.V.); and Department of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.). Received March 1, 2017; revision requested May 2; revision received December 21; accepted January 3, 2018. Address correspondence to G.L.G.M. (e-mail: gilimagm@gmail.com). Supported by Seno Medical Instruments. *G.L.G.M. and R.M.P. contributed equally to this work. Publisher Copyright: © RSNA, 2018.
(Peer reviewed)