Dedicated Photon-Counting CT for Detection and Classification of Microcalcifications
Luisa Charlotte Huck,Maike Bode,Eloisa Zanderigo,Caroline Wilpert,Vanessa Raaff,Ebba Dethlefsen,Evelyn Wenkel,Christiane Katharina Kuhl
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/rli.0000000000001097
IF: 6.7
2024-06-27
Investigative Radiology
Abstract:Objectives Clinical experience regarding the use of dedicated photon-counting breast CT (PC-BCT) for diagnosis of breast microcalcifications is scarce. This study systematically compares the detection and classification of breast microcalcifications using a dedicated breast photon-counting CT, especially designed for examining the breast, in comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods This is a prospective intraindividual study on women with DBT screening–detected BI-RADS-4/-5 microcalcifications who underwent PC-BCT before biopsy. PC-BCT images were reconstructed with a noninterpolated spatial resolution of 0.15 × 0.15 × 0.15 mm (reconstruction mode 1 [RM-1]) and with 0.3 × 0.3 × 0.3 mm (reconstruction mode 2 [RM-2]), plus thin-slab maximum intensity projection (MIP) reconstructions. Two radiologists independently rated the detection of microcalcifications in direct comparison with DBT on a 5-point scale. The distribution and morphology of microcalcifications were then rated according to BI-RADS. The size of the smallest discernible microcalcification particle was measured. For PC-BCT, the average glandular dose was determined by Monte Carlo simulations; for DBT, the information provided by the DBT system was used. Results Between September 2022 and July 2023, 22 participants (mean age, 61; range, 42–85 years) with microcalcifications (16 malignant; 6 benign) were included. In 2/22 with microcalcifications in the posterior region, microcalcifications were not detectable on PC-BCT, likely because they were not included in the PC-BCT volume. In the remaining 20 participants, microcalcifications were detectable. With high between-reader agreement (κ > 0.8), conspicuity of microcalcifications was rated similar for DBT and MIPs of RM-1 (mean, 4.83 ± 0.38 vs 4.86 ± 0.35) ( P = 0.66), but was significantly lower ( P < 0.05) for the remaining PC-BCT reconstructions: 2.11 ± 0.92 (RM-2), 2.64 ± 0.80 (MIPs of RM-2), and 3.50 ± 1.23 (RM-1). Identical distribution qualifiers were assigned for PC-BCT and DBT in 18/20 participants, with excellent agreement (κ = 0.91), whereas identical morphologic qualifiers were assigned in only 5/20, with poor agreement (κ = 0.44). The median size of smallest discernible microcalcification particle was 0.2 versus 0.6 versus 1.1 mm in DBT versus RM-1 versus RM-2 ( P < 0.001), likely due to blooming effects. Average glandular dose was 7.04 mGy (PC-BCT) versus 6.88 mGy (DBT) ( P = 0.67). Conclusions PC-BCT allows reliable detection of in-breast microcalcifications as long as they are not located in the posterior part of the breast and allows assessment of their distribution, but not of their individual morphology.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging