"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Original Research

Downgrading of Breast Masses Suspicious for Cancer by Using Optoacoustic Breast Imaging

Published Online:Apr 17 2018https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018170500

Abstract

Of benign masses classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4a, 47.9% were downgraded to BI-RADS 3 or BI-RADS 2, potentially decreasing both biopsies negative for cancer and the need for short interval follow-up imaging examinations Additional research may be helpful in further minimizing the low (4.5%) rate of false-negative findings.

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 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.

© RSNA, 2018

Online supplemental material is available for this article.

References

  • 1. Latest world cancer statistics Global cancer burden rises to 14.1 million new cases in 2012: Marked increase in breast cancers must be addressed. World Health Organization Web site. https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2013/pdfs/pr223_E.pdf. Published December 12, 2013. Accessed October 10, 2016.
    Google Scholar
  • 2. Euhus D, Di Carlo PA, Khouri NF. Breast Cancer Screening. Surg Clin North Am 2015;95(5):991–1011.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Coleman MP, Quaresma M, Berrino F, et al. Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD). Lancet Oncol 2008;9(8):730–756.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1784–1792.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Sree SV, Ng EY-K, Acharya RU, Faust O. Breast imaging: A survey. World J Clin Oncol 2011;2(4):171–178.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Guidelines for ultrasound guided breast biopsy. European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Website. http://www.efsumb.org/guidelines/guidelines-breastbiop.pdf. Published April 29, 2005. Accessed October 10, 2016.
    Google Scholar
  • 7. Leong AS, Zhuang Z. The changing role of pathology in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Pathobiology 2011;78(2):99–114.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(19):1432–1440.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Giess CS, Frost EP, Birdwell RL. Difficulties and errors in diagnosis of breast neoplasms. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2012;33(4):288–299.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2016;164(4):256–267.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(4):921–927.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(1):177–182.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221(3):641–649.
    Google Scholar
  • 14. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(6):1675–1679.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Raza S, Baum JK. Solid breast lesions: evaluation with power Doppler US. Radiology 1997;203(1):164–168.
    Google Scholar
  • 16. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196(1):123–134.
    Google Scholar
  • 17. Vimpeli SM, Saarenmaa I, Huhtala H, Soimakallio S. Large-core needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration biopsy in solid breast lesions: comparison of costs and diagnostic value. Acta Radiol 2008;49(8):863–869.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. ACR practice parameter for the performance of a breast ultrasound examination. American College of Radiology Website. http://www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/US_Breast.pdf. Revised 2016. Accessed October 10, 2016.
    Google Scholar
  • 19. Neuschler EI, Butler R, Young CA, et al. A pivotal study of optoacoustic imaging to diagnose benign and malignant breast masses: a new evaluation tool for radiologists. Radiology 2017 Nov 27:172228 [Epub ahead of print].
    Google Scholar
  • 20. Navarro B, Ubeda B, Vallespí M, Wolf C, Casas L, Browne JL. Role of elastography in the assessment of breast lesions: preliminary results. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30(3):313–321.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Cho N, Moon WK, Kim HY, Chang JM, Park SH, Lyou CY. Sonoelastographic strain index for differentiation of benign and malignant nonpalpable breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29(1):1–7.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Sohn YM, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Moon HJ, Kim SJ. Sonographic elastography combined with conventional sonography: how much is it helpful for diagnostic performance? J Ultrasound Med 2009;28(4):413–420.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Zhi H, Ou B, Luo BM, Feng X, Wen YL, Yang HY. Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(6):807–815.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Menezes R, Sardessai S, Furtado R, Sardessai M. Correlation of Strain Elastography with Conventional Sonography and FNAC/Biopsy. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(7):TC05–TC10.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Cho N, Jang M, Lyou CY, Park JS, Choi HY, Moon WK. Distinguishing benign from malignant masses at breast US: combined US elastography and color doppler US–influence on radiologist accuracy. Radiology 2012;262(1):80–90.
    Google Scholar
  • 26. Stavros AT, Freitas AG, deMello GGN, et al. Ultrasound positive predictive values by BI-RADS categories 3-5 for solid masses: An independent reader study. Eur Radiol 2017;27(10):4307–4315.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Ermilov SA, Khamapirad T, Conjusteau A, et al. Laser optoacoustic imaging system for detection of breast cancer. J Biomed Opt 2009;14(2):024007.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Kruger RA, Kuzmiak CM, Lam RB, Reinecke DR, Del Rio SP, Steed D. Dedicated 3D photoacoustic breast imaging. Med Phys 2013;40(11):113301.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Manohar S, Vaartjes SE, van Hespen JC, et al. Initial results of in vivo non-invasive cancer imaging in the human breast using near-infrared photoacoustics. Opt Express 2007;15(19):12277–12285.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Kim J, Park S, Jung Y, et al. Programmable real-time clinical photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging system. Sci Rep 2016;6(1):35137.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Heijblom M, Piras D, Brinkhuis M, et al. Photoacoustic image patterns of breast carcinoma and comparisons with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and vascular stained histopathology. Sci Rep 2015;5(1):11778.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32. Franiel T, Röthke M. PI-RADS 2.0 for prostate MRI [in German]. Radiologe 2017;57(8):665–678.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Delfim RLC, Veiga LCGD, Vidal APA, Lopes FPPL, Vaisman M, Teixeira PFDS. Likelihood of malignancy in thyroid nodules according to a proposed Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) classification merging suspicious and benign ultrasound features. Arch Endocrinol Metab 2017;61(3):211–221.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received March 1, 2017; revision requested May 2; revision received December 21; accepted January 3, 2018.
Published online: Apr 17 2018
Published in print: Aug 2018