Advertisement

Testing a dual-modality system that combines full-field digital mammography and automated breast ultrasound

Published:December 03, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.11.024

      Abstract

      Purpose

      The aim of this study was to test a novel dual-modality imaging system that combines full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in a single platform. Our Aceso system, named after the Greek goddess of healing, was specifically designed for the early detection of cancer in women with dense breast tissue.

      Materials and Methods

      Aceso was first tested using two industry standards: a Contrast Detail Mammography (CDMAM) phantom as endorsed by European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services was used to assess the FFDM images; and the CIRS 040GSE ultrasound phantom was imaged to evaluate the quality of the ABUS images. In addition, 58 women participated in a clinical trial: 51 were healthy volunteers aged between 40 and 65, while 7 were patients referred by the breast clinic, 6 of whom had biopsy-proven breast cancer.

      Results

      The CDMAM tests showed that the FFDM results were “acceptable” but fell short of “achievable” which was attributed to the low dose used. The ABUS images had good depth penetration (80 mm) and adequate axial resolution (0.5 mm), but the lateral resolution of 2 mm was judged to be too coarse. In a 42-year-old volunteer with extremely dense breast tissue, the ABUS modality detected a lesion (a benign cyst) that was mammographically occult in the FFDM image. For a 73-year-old patient with fatty breasts, a malignant lesion was successfully detected and co-registered in the FFDM and ABUS images. On average, each woman spent less than 11 min in the acquisition room.

      Conclusions

      While there is room for improvement in the quality of both the FFDM and ABUS images, Aceso has demonstrated its ability to acquire clinically meaningful images for a range of women with varying breast densities and, therefore, has potential as a screening device.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Weedon-Fekjær H
        • Romundstad PR
        • Vatten LJ
        Modern mammography screening and breast cancer mortality: population study.
        Br Med J. 2014; 348: g3701
        • Bleyer A
        • Welch HG
        Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 1998-2005
        • Miller AB
        • Wall C
        • Baines CJ
        • Sun P
        • To T
        • Narod SA
        Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.
        Br Med J. 2014; 348: g366
        • Kuhl CK
        • Schrading S
        • Strobel K
        • Schild HH
        • Hilgers R-D
        • Bieling HB
        Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first post-contrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection: a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI.
        J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 2304-2310
        • Vaughan CL
        New developments in medical imaging to detect breast cancer.
        Contin Med Educ. 2011; 29: 122-125
        • Kelly KM
        • Dean J
        • Comulada WS
        • Lee S-J
        Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts.
        Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 734-742
        • Dempsey PJ
        The history of breast ultrasound.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2004; 23: 887-894
        • Yang W
        • Dempsey PJ
        Diagnostic breast ultrasound: current status and future directions.
        Ultrasound Clin. 2009; 4: 117-133
        • Berg WA
        • Blume JD
        • Cormack JB
        • Mendelson EB
        • Lehrer D
        • Böhm-Vélez M
        • et al.
        Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.
        J Am Med Assoc. 2008; 299: 2151-2163
        • Nothacker M
        • Duda V
        • Hahn M
        • Warm M
        • Degenhardt F
        • Madjar H
        • et al.
        Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review”.
        BMC Cancer. 2009; 9: 335https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-335
        • Schaefer FKW
        • Waldmann A
        • Katalinic A
        • Wefelnberg C
        • Heller M
        • Jonat W
        • et al.
        Influence of additional breast ultrasound on cancer detection in a cohort study for quality assurance in breast diagnosis – analysis of 102,577 diagnostic procedures.
        Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 1085-1092
        • Chou YH
        • Tiu CM
        • Chen J
        • Chang RF
        Automated full-field breast ultrasonography: the past and the present.
        J Med Ultrasound. 2007; 15: 31-44
        • Arleo EK
        • Saleh M
        • Ionescu D
        • Drotman M
        • Min RJ
        • Hentel K
        Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first quarter experience.
        Clin Imaging. 2014; 38: 439-444
        • Giuliano V
        • Giuliano C
        Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts.
        Clin Imaging. 2013; 37: 480-486
        • Novak D
        Indications for and comparative diagnostic value of combined ultrasound and X-ray mammography”.
        Eur J Radiol. 1983; 3: 299-302
      1. Shmulewitz A, “Methods and apparatus for performing sonomammography”, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Number 5,474,072, issued 12 December 1995.

      2. Dines KA, Kelly-Fry E, Romilly AP, “Mammography method and apparatus”, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Number 6,574,499, issued 3 June 2003.

      3. Entrekin RR, Change ND, “Compression plate for diagnostic breast imaging”, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Number 6,682,484, issued 27 January 2004.

        • Irving BJ
        • Maree GJ
        • Hering ER
        • Douglas TS
        Radiation dose from a linear slit scanning x-ray machine with full-body imaging capabilities.
        Radiat Prot Dosim. 2008; 130: 482-489
        • Kapur A
        • Krucker J
        • Astley O
        • Buckley D
        • Eberhard JW
        • Alyassin AM
        • et al.
        Fusion of digital mammography with breast ultrasound: a phantom study.
        in: Antonuk LE Yaffe MJ Medical Imaging: Physics of Medical Imaging. Proceedings SPIE. 4682. 2002: 526-537
        • Kapur A
        • Carson PL
        • Eberhard J
        • Goodsitt MM
        • Thomenius K
        • Lokhandwalla M
        • et al.
        Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound.
        Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 3: 325-334
        • Booi RC
        • Krücker JF
        • Goodsitt MM
        • O’Donnell M
        • Kapur A
        • LeCarpentier GL
        • et al.
        Evaluating thin compression paddles for mammographically compatible ultrasound.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007; 33: 462-482
        • Sinha SP
        • Roubidoux MA
        • Helvie MA
        • Nees AV
        • Goodsitt MM
        • LeCarpentier GL
        • et al.
        Multi-modality 3D breast imaging with X-ray tomosynthesis and automated ultrasound.
        in: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of the IEEE EMBS, Lyon, France. 2007: 1335-1338
        • Goodsitt MM
        • Chan HP
        • Hadjiiski L
        • LeCarpentier GL
        • Carson PL
        Automated registration of volumes of interest for a combined x-ray tomosynthesis and ultrasound breast imaging system.
        in: Krupinski EA Digital Mammography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 5116. Springer-Verlag, Berlin2008: 463-468
        • Padilla F
        • Roubidoux MA
        • Paramagul C
        • Sinha SP
        • Goodsitt MM
        • Le Carpentier GL
        • et al.
        Breast mass characterization using 3-dimensional automated ultrasound as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot study.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2013; 32: 93-104
        • Tesic MM
        • Piccaro MF
        • Munier B
        Full field digital mammography scanner”.
        Eur J Radiol. 1999; 31: 2-17
      4. Besson GM, Nields MW, “Integrated X-ray and ultrasound medical imaging system”, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Number 6,846,289, issued 25 January 2005.

      5. Suri J, Janer R, Guo Y Elbakri I, “Diagnostic system for multimodality mammography”, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Number 7,916,918, issued 29 March 2011.

        • Lease A
        • Vaughan CL
        • Beningfield SJ
        • Potgieter JH
        • Booysen A
        Feasibility of using Lodox technology for mammography”.
        in: Antonuk LE Yaffe MJ Medical imaging: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings SPIE. 4682. 2002: 656-664
        • Suri JS
        • Danielson T
        • Guo Y
        • Janer R
        Fischer’s fused full field digital mammography and ultrasound system (FFDMUS)”.
        in: Bos L Medical and Care Compunetics. 2. IOS Press, 2005: 177-200
      6. Li B, Thibault JB, Hall AL, “Combining X-ray and ultrasound imaging for enhanced mammography”, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Number 7,831,015, issued 9 November 2010.

        • Boone JM
        • Nelson TR
        • Lindfors KK
        • Seibert JA
        Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation.
        Radiology. 2001; 221: 657-667
        • O’Connell A
        • Conover DL
        • Zhang Y
        • Seifert P
        • Logan-Young Y
        • Lin C-FL
        • et al.
        Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195: 496-509
        • Hussein K
        • Vaughan CL
        • Douglas TS
        Modeling, validation and application of a mathematical tissue-equivalent breast phantom for linear slot-scanning digital mammography.
        Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54: 1533-1553
        • Vaughan CL
        • Evans MD
        Diagnosing breast cancer: an opportunity for innovative engineering.
        S Afr Med J. 2012; 102: 562-564
      7. Evans MD, Smith RV, Vaughan CL “Dual-modality mammography”, United Kingdom Patent Office, Patent Number 2509193, issued 8 July 2015.

        • Young KC
        • Abdulaaziz A
        • Oduko JM
        • Bosmans H
        • Verbrugge B
        • Geertse T
        • et al.
        Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems.
        in: Medical Imaging 2008: Physics of Medical Imaging. Proceedings of SPIE. volume 6913. 2008https://doi.org/10.1117/12.770571
        • Dance DR
        • Young KC
        • van Engen RE
        Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols.
        Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54: 4361-4372
        • Chen Q
        • Zagzebski JA
        Simulation study of effects of speed of sound and attenuation on ultrasound lateral resolution.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004; 30: 1297-1306