Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr;90(4):194-200.
doi: 10.4174/astr.2016.90.4.194. Epub 2016 Mar 30.

Validity of breast-specific gamma imaging for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound

Min Jeng Cho  1 , Jung-Hyun Yang  1 , Yeong Beom Yu  1 , Kyoung Sik Park  1 , Hyun Woo Chung  2 , Young So  2 , Nami Choi  3 , Mi Young Kim  3
Affiliations

Validity of breast-specific gamma imaging for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound

Min Jeng Cho et al. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 162 patients who underwent BSGI in BI-RADS 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound.

Results: Of the 162 breast lesions, 66 were malignant tumors and 96 were benign tumors. Sensitivity and specificity of BSGI were 90.9% and 78.1%, and positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 74.1% and 92.6%. The sensitivity or specificity of mammography and ultrasound were 74.2% and 56.3% and 87.9% and 19.8%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of BSGI for breast lesions ≤1 cm were 88.0% and 86.8%, while the values of beast lesions >1 cm were 92.7% and 61.5%. The sensitivity or specificity of BSGI and mammography for patients with dense breasts were 92.0% and 81.3% and 72.0% and 50.0%, respectively. 26 patients showed neither a nodule nor microcalcification on ultrasound, but showed suspicious calcification on mammography. The sensitivity and specificity of BSGI with microcalcification only lesion were 75.0% and 94.4%.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that BSGI had shown high sensitivity and specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values in BI-RADS 4 lesions on ultrasound and/or mammography. BSGI showed excellent results in dense breasts, in lesions that are less than 1 cm in size and lesions with suspicious microcalcification only.

Keywords: Breast neoplasms; Breast specific gamma imaging; Mammography; Ultrasonography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Breast image of a 53-year-old woman. (A, B) Mammography did not demonstrate any abnormal lesions in the heterogeneously dense breast. (C, D) Breast specific gamma imaging demonstrated focal increased radiotracer uptake in the upper outer quadrant area (arrow) of the right breast. (E) Ultrasound demonstrated an ill-defined hypoechoic nodule at 9 h of the right breast (arrow). Pathology demonstrated an 8-mm focus of invasive ductal carcinoma.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. A 47-year-old woman with left breast microcalcifications. (A–C) Mammography (left craniocaudal, left mediolateral oblique, left mediolateral oblique magnification) demonstrated cluster of amorphous microcalcifications at the upper out quadrant area. (D, E) Breast specific gamma imaging demonstrated focal increased radiotracer uptake in the upper outer quadrant area (arrow) of the left breast. (F) Ultrasound was negative and is not shown. Pathology demonstrated a 9-mm focus of lobular carcinoma in situ.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. A 37-year-old woman with a palpable lump in the left breast. (A, B) Mammography demonstrated a large mass at 12 h of the left breast. (C, D) Breast specific gamma imaging demonstrated increased radiotracer uptake in the upper inner quadrant area of the left breast. (E) Ultrasound demonstrated 70-mm hypoechoic mass in the left breast. Pathology demonstrated a 56-mm benign phyllodes tumor.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kim KS, Kim Z, Shim EJ, Kim NH, Jung SY, Kim J, et al. The reality in the followup of breast cancer survivors: survey of Korean Breast Cancer Society. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015;88:133–139. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165–175. - PubMed
    1. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology. 1998;209:511–518. - PubMed
    1. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–849. - PubMed
    1. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151–2163. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources