Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 8 , Pages 945-950, August 2007

Detection of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ with Mammography, Breast Specific Gamma Imaging, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Comparative Study1

  • Rachel F. Brem, MD

      Affiliations

    • Breast Imaging and Intervention, The George Washington University, 2150 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: R.F.B.
  • ,
  • Michael Fishman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, The George Washington University, 2150 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037.
  • ,
  • Jocelyn A. Rapelyea, MD

      Affiliations

    • Breast Imaging and Intervention, The George Washington University, 2150 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037

Received 15 February 2007; accepted 8 April 2007.

Rationale and Objectives

To evaluate the sensitivity of high-resolution breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) for the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) based on histopathology and to compare the sensitivity of BSGI with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of DCIS.

Materials and Methods

Twenty women, mean 55 years (range 34–76 years), with 22 biopsy-proven DCIS were retrospectively reviewed. After injection of 25–30 mCi (925–1,110 MBq) technetium 99m-sestamibi, patients had BSGI with a high-resolution, small-field-of-view gamma camera in craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections. BSGI studies were prospectively classified according to focal radiotracer uptake using a 1 to 5 scale, as normal 1), with no focal or diffuse uptake; benign 2), with minimal patchy uptake; probably benign 3), with scattered patchy uptake; probably abnormal 4), with mild focal radiotracer uptake; and abnormal 5), with marked focal radiotracer uptake. Imaging findings were compared to findings at biopsy or surgical excision. The sensitivity of BSGI, mammography, and when performed, MRI were determined for the detection of DCIS. Breast MRI was performed on seven patients with eight biopsy-proven foci. The sensitivities were compared using a two-tailed t-test and confidence intervals were determined.

Results

Pathologic tumor size of the DCIS ranged from 2 to 21 mm (mean 9.9 mm). Of 22 cases of biopsy-proven DCIS in 20 women, 91% were detected with BSGI, 82% were detected with mammography, and 88% were detected with magnetic resonance imaging. BSGI had the highest sensitivity for the detection of DCIS, although this small sample size did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference. Two cases of DCIS (9%) were diagnosed only after BSGI demonstrated an occult focus of radiotracer uptake in the contralateral breast, previously undetected by mammography. There were two false-negative BSGI studies

Conclusions

BSGI has higher sensitivity for the detection of DCIS than mammography or MRI and can reliably detect small, subcentimeter lesions.

Key Words: Breast cancer, molecular imaging, breast biopsy, nuclear medicine imaging

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

1 Bristol-Myers Squibb (Billerica, MA) provided grant support for the study and offered the radiotracer as an in-kind donation. No authors are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb or Dilon Technologies. R.F.B. has stock options in Dilon Technologies and recently joined the Board of Managers and has been on the speaker’s bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb (previously DuPont Pharmaceuticals). No other authors have any other relationship with Bristol-Myers Squibb or Dilon Technologies. The data reported in this study, as well as the submission of this manuscript, always remained in sole possession of the authors.

PII: S1076-6332(07)00194-8

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2007.04.004

Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 8 , Pages 945-950, August 2007