Breast mass assessment on chest CT: Axial, sagittal, coronal or maximal intensity projection?

Published:February 26, 2020DOI:


      • Denser breast mass is more conspicuous on the MIP images.
      • Radiologists preferred the MIP images for breast mass detection.
      • Sagittal and coronal images were found to be equally preferable to axial.



      The goal of this work is to determine the optimal projection to detect breast masses on Chest CT.


      Institutional Review Board (HIPPA compliant) approval was obtained with a waiver of consent. 10 image pairs of Chest CT images containing breast masses were selected for review by 10 chest radiologists: the pairs consisted of axial, sagittal, coronal and axial MIP images (MIP images) with each projection compared to a MIP and with one another. For each pair, the image where the mass was most conspicuous was recorded.


      MIPs were preferred to any cross sectional projection 82% of the time; sagittal (63%) or coronal (63%) images were preferred to the axial projection. When sagittal and coronal images were compared there was no preference.


      MIP images should be obtained and reviewed for breast pathology; sagittal or coronal projections may provide additional information.


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


        • Kopans D.B.
        Breast cancer screening: where have we been and where are we going? A personal perspective based on history, data and experience.
        Clin Imaging. 2018; 48: vii-xi
        • Hooley R.J.
        • Greenberg K.L.
        • Stackhouse R.M.
        • Geisel J.L.
        • Butler R.S.
        • Philpotts L.E.
        Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
        Radiology. 2012; 265: 59-69
        • Weigert J.
        • Steenbergen S.
        The Connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts.
        Breast J. 2012; 18: 517-522
        • Berg W.A.
        • Zhang Z.
        • Lehrer D.
        • Jong R.A.
        • Pisano E.D.
        • Barr R.G.
        • et al.
        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. 2012; 307: 1394-1404
        • Sharpe R.E.
        • Levin D.C.
        • Parker L.
        • Rao V.M.
        The effect of the controversial US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on the use of screening mammography.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 21-24
        • Mathis K.L.
        • Hoskin T.L.
        • Boughey J.C.
        • Crownhart B.S.
        • Brandt K.R.
        • Vachon C.M.
        • et al.
        Palpable presentation of breast cancer persists in the era of screening mammography.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210: 314-318
        • Broder J.
        • Warshauer D.M.
        Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000-2005.
        Emerg Radiol. 2006; 13: 25-30
        • Eberth J.M.
        • Qiu R.
        • Adams S.A.
        • Salloum R.G.
        • Bell N.
        • Arrington A.K.
        • et al.
        Lung cancer screening using low-dose CT: the current national landscape.
        Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2014; 85: 379-384
        • O’Connell A.M.
        • Karellas A.
        • Vedantham S.
        The potential role of dedicated 3D breast CT as a diagnostic tool: review and early clinical examples.
        Breast J. 2014; 20: 592-605
        • Inoue M.
        • Sano T.
        • Watai R.
        • Ashikaga R.
        • Ueda K.
        • Watatani M.
        • et al.
        Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181: 679-686
        • Joe B.N.
        • Sickles E.A.
        The evolution of breast imaging: past to present.
        Radiology. 2014; 273: S23-S44
        • Prionas N.D.
        • Lindfors K.K.
        • Ray S.
        • Huang S.-Y.
        • Beckett L.A.
        • Monsky W.L.
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience.
        Radiology. 2010; 256: 714-723
        • Falomo E.
        • Strigel R.M.
        • Bruce R.
        • Munoz Del Rio A.
        • Adejumo C.
        • Kelcz F.
        Incidence and outcomes of incidental breast lesions detected on cross-sectional imaging examinations.
        Breast J. 2018; 24: 743-748
        • Healey T.T.
        • Agarwal S.
        • Patel R.
        • Ratanaprasatporn L.
        • Ratanaprasatporn L.
        • Lourenco A.P.
        Cancer yield of incidental breast lesions detected on chest computed tomography.
        J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018; 42: 453-456
        • Yi J.G.
        • Kim S.J.
        • Marom E.M.
        • Park J.H.
        • Jung S.I.
        • Lee M.W.
        Chest CT of incidental breast lesions.
        J Thorac Imaging. 2008; 23: 148-155
        • Harish M.G.
        • Konda S.D.
        • MacMahon H.
        • Newstead G.M.
        Breast lesions incidentally detected with CT: what the general radiologist needs to know.
        Radiographics. 2007; 27: S37-S51
        • Son J.H.
        • Jung H.K.
        • Song J.W.
        • Baek H.J.
        • Doo K.W.
        • Kim W.
        • et al.
        Incidentally detected breast lesions on chest CT with US correlation: a pictorial essay.
        Diagn Interv Radiol. 2016; 22: 514-518
        • Bach A.G.
        • Abbas J.
        • Jasaabuu C.
        • Schramm D.
        • Wienke A.
        • Surov A.
        Comparison between incidental malignant and benign breast lesions detected by computed tomography: a systematic review.
        J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013; 57: 529-533
        • Moschetta M.
        • Scardapane A.
        • Lorusso V.
        • Rella L.
        • Telegrafo M.
        • Serio G.
        • et al.
        Role of multidetector computed tomography in evaluating incidentally detected breast lesions.
        Tumori. 2015; 101: 455-460
        • Porter G.
        • Steel J.
        • Paisley K.
        • Watkins R.
        • Holgate C.
        Incidental breast masses detected by computed tomography: are any imaging features predictive of malignancy?.
        Clin Radiol. 2009; 64: 529-533
        • Lin Y.P.
        • Hsu H.H.
        • Ko K.H.
        • Chu C.M.
        • Chou Y.C.
        • Chang W.C.
        • et al.
        Differentiation of malignant and benign incidental breast lesions detected by chest multidetector-row computed tomography: added value of quantitative enhancement analysis.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0154569
        • Wang H.Y.
        • Jiang Y.X.
        • Zhu Q.L.
        • Zhang J.
        • Xiao M.S.
        • Liu H.
        • et al.
        Automated breast volume scanning: identifying 3-D coronal plane imaging features may help categorize complex cysts.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016; 42: 689-698
        • Kuhl C.
        The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice.
        Radiology. 2007; 244: 356-378
        • Kuhl C.K.
        • Schrading S.
        • Strobel K.
        • Schild H.H.
        • Hilgers R.D.
        • Bieling H.B.
        Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI.
        J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 2304-2310
        • Lee C.I.
        • Forman H.P.
        What we can and cannot see coming.
        Radiology. 2010; 257: 313-314
        • Fishman E.K.
        • Ney D.R.
        • Heath D.G.
        • Corl F.M.
        • Horton K.M.
        • Johnson P.T.
        Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why.
        Radiographics. 2006; 26: 905-922
        • Gruden J.F.
        • Ouanounou S.
        • Tigges S.
        • Norris S.D.
        • Klausner T.S.
        Incremental benefit of maximum-intensity-projection images on observer detection of small pulmonary nodules revealed by multidetector CT.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179: 149-157
        • Coakley F.V.
        • Cohen M.D.
        • Johnson M.S.
        • Gonin R.
        • Hanna M.P.
        Maximum intensity projection images in the detection of simulated pulmonary nodules by spiral CT.
        Br J Radiol. 1998; 71: 135-140
        • Eibel R.
        • Türk T.R.
        • Kulinna C.
        • Herrmann K.
        • Reiser M.F.
        Multidetector-row CT of the lungs: multiplanar reconstructions and maximum intensity projections for the detection of pulmonary nodules.
        Röfo. 2001; 173: 815-821
        • Wallis J.W.
        • Miller T.R.
        Three-dimensional display in nuclear medicine and radiology.
        J Nucl Med. 1991; 32: 534-546
        • Diederich S.
        • Lentschig M.G.
        • Overbeck T.R.
        • Wormanns D.
        • Heindel W.
        Detection of pulmonary nodules at spiral CT: comparison of maximum intensity projection sliding slabs and single-image reporting.
        Eur Radiol. 2001; 11: 1345-1350
        • Antropova N.
        • Abe H.
        • Giger M.L.
        Use of clinical MRI maximum intensity projections for improved breast lesion classification with deep convolutional neural networks.
        J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018; 5014503
        • Perry H.
        • Phillips J.
        • Dialani V.
        • Slanetz P.J.
        • Fein-Zachary V.J.
        • Karimova E.J.
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced mammography: a systematic guide to interpretation and reporting.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212: 222-231