A Standard Mammography Unit – Standard 3D Ultrasound Probe Fusion Prototype: First ResultsArticle in several languages: English | deutsch
received 22 March 2017
revised 26 March 2017
accepted 27 March 2017
27 April 2017 (eFirst)
Aim The combination of different imaging modalities through the use of fusion devices promises significant diagnostic improvement for breast pathology. The aim of this study was to evaluate image quality and clinical feasibility of a prototype fusion device (fusion prototype) constructed from a standard tomosynthesis mammography unit and a standard 3D ultrasound probe using a new method of breast compression.
Materials and Methods Imaging was performed on 5 mastectomy specimens from patients with confirmed DCIS or invasive carcinoma (BI-RADS™ 6). For the preclinical fusion prototype an ABVS system ultrasound probe from an Acuson S2000 was integrated into a MAMMOMAT Inspiration (both Siemens Healthcare Ltd) and, with the aid of a newly developed compression plate, digital mammogram and automated 3D ultrasound images were obtained.
Results The quality of digital mammogram images produced by the fusion prototype was comparable to those produced using conventional compression. The newly developed compression plate did not influence the applied x-ray dose. The method was not more labour intensive or time-consuming than conventional mammography. From the technical perspective, fusion of the two modalities was achievable.
Conclusion In this study, using only a few mastectomy specimens, the fusion of an automated 3D ultrasound machine with a standard mammography unit delivered images of comparable quality to conventional mammography. The device allows simultaneous ultrasound – the second important imaging modality in complementary breast diagnostics – without increasing examination time or requiring additional staff.
* Both authors contributed equally to this publication.
- 1 Welch HG. Screening mammography–a long run for a short slide. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1276-1278
- 2 Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G. et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 2012; 19 (Suppl. 01) 42-56
- 3 Jørgensen KJ, Keen JD, Gøtzsche PC. Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality?. Radiology 2011; 260: 621-627
- 4 Boyd NF, Huszti E, Melnichouk O. et al. Mammographic features associated with interval breast cancers in screening programs. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16: 417
- 5 Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J. et al. Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol 2016; DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4636-4.
- 6 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms Langversion 3.0. Update, 2012. Online: http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/032-045OL_l_S3__Brustkrebs_Mammakarzinom_Diagnostik_Therapie_Nachsorge_2012-07.pdf last access: 02.02.2017
- 7 Dromain C, Boyer B, Ferré R. et al. Computed-aided diagnosis (CAD) in the detection of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 417-423
- 8 Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D. et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 583-589
- 9 Hopp T, Baltzer P, Dietzel M. et al. 2D/3D image fusion of X-ray mammograms with breast MRI: visualizing dynamic contrast enhancement in mammograms. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2012; 7: 339-348
- 10 Schulz-Wendtland R, Wittenberg T, Michel T. et al. [Future of mammography-based imaging]. Radiologe 2014; 54: 217-223
- 11 Conway WF, Hayes CW, Brewer WH. Occult breast masses: use of a mammographic localizing grid for US evaluation. Radiology 1991; 181: 143-146
- 12 Richter K, Prihoda H, Heywang-Köbrunner SH. et al. Description and first clinical use of a new system for combined mammography and automated clinical amplitude velocity reconstructive imaging breast sonography. Invest Radiol 1997; 32: 19-28
- 13 Booi RC, Krücker JF, Goodsitt MM. et al. Evaluating thin compression paddles for mammographically compatible ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33: 472-482
- 14 Schulz-Wendtland R, Bani M, Lux MP. et al. Pilot study on the detection of simulated lesions using a 2D and 3D digital full-field mammography system with a newly developed high resolution detector based on two shifts of a-Se. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2012; 72: 408-411
- 15 Schütze B, Marx C, Fleck M. et al. Diagnostic evaluation of sonographically visualized breast lesions by using a new clinical amplitude/velocity reference imaging technique (CARI sonography). Invest Radiol 1998; 33: 341-347
- 16 Li B, Thibault JB, Hall AL. Combining X-ray and ultrasound imaging for enhanced mammography. US Patent 7831015 B2, 2010
- 17 Schulz-Wendtland R, Fuchsjäger M, Wacker T. et al. Digital mammography: an update. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72: 258-265
- 18 Mühlhauser I. Screening auf Brustkrebs/Mammografie-Screening. DZO 2013; 45: 80-85
- 19 Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M. et al. Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough?. Australas Radiol 2003; 47: 121-126
- 20 Morgan MP, Cooke MM, McCarthy GM. Microcalcifications associated with breast cancer: an epiphenomenon or biologically significant feature of selected tumors?. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2005; 10: 181-187
- 21 Kapur A, Carson PL, Eberhard J. et al. Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004; 3: 325-334