While mammography remains the gold standard for breast cancer detection, its findings can, at times, be inconclusive, particularly in women with dense breast tissue or changes within the breast parenchyma.
While mammography remains the gold standard for breast cancer
detection, its findings can, at times, be inconclusive,
particularly in women with dense breast tissue or changes within
the breast parenchyma. "For women with dense breast tissue, cancer
screening can be very challenging," said Nathalie Johnson, MD,
Medical Director of the Legacy Breast Health Centers and an
oncology surgeon at the Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital &
Medical Center, Portland, OR. For these patients, magnetic
resonance (MR) imaging is often included in the diagnostic workup
due to its higher sensitivity. However, published studies indicate
that the specificity of breast MR varies, potentially resulting in
false-positive findings.
"As a surgeon taking care of breast cancer patients, my
frustration has been that the sensitivity of MRI is great but its
specificity could be better," said Johnson. "Because of MRI's high
false-positive rate we do more biopsies than are necessary, or, in
some cases, women elect for mastectomy when they could have had
breast-conserving therapy."
Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging (BSGI) with the Dilon 6800 Gamma
Camera (Dilon Technologies, Inc., Newport News, VA) provides the
same high sensitivity of MR but with a much higher specificity.
"With BSGI we have the same sensitivity as MR but a better
specificity," said Johnson. "That, to me, is what is exciting about
BSGI."
Sensitivity/Specificity of BSGI
"BSGI is both very sensitive and very specific," explained
Margaret Bertrand, MD, Medical Director of the Bertrand Breast and
Osteoporosis Center (Greensboro, NC), which recently became a part
of Solis Women's Health of Austin, TX. "In my experience, BSGI has
been 90% specific and, in my first 50 cases of confirmed cancer,
its sensitivity has been 92% to 96%."
"We just finished reviewing our first 170 cases," added Johnson.
"With BSGI, we had a biopsy rate of about 5%. If you calculate what
you would expect with MR, we probably would have had a biopsy rate
of about 14%. Of that 5%, 50% were cancers. So far, BSGI has given
us fewer positives than MR, and, in cases where its findings have
been positive, there was a very high likelihood that there was a
malignancy."
This high level of sensitivity can be especially helpful in
patients who may wish to take a wait-and-see approach, explained
Bertrand. "Some women are in denial," she said. "I show them the
mammographic findings, but they say they do not want to have a
biopsy or MR imaging. With BSGI, it's nice to be able to tell
patients that I have an easy test that they can do and if its
results are positive, there is a greater than 90% chance that it is
cancer."
The Patient Experience
For the patient, the exam is much easier than MR imaging as
well. "There is a big difference for the patient," said Bertrand.
"With MR imaging patients have to lie on their stomachs, which some
women find very uncomfortable. I've also had numerous
claustrophobic patients who have refused to try MR, even with
sedation, and 2 who agreed to try it with sedation who couldn't go
through with it when the time came. I've also had a patient who had
a brain aneurysm repair and had a clip at the site, a
contraindication to MRI."
"BSGI, on the other hand, is very comfortable," continued
Bertrand. "The patient sits throughout the exam; most of my
patients read a magazine while they are having it done." The entire
exam takes approximately 45 minutes. Each breast is imaged in the
same position as a mammogram is performed, resulting in images that
can be easily compared to the mammographic findings.
Case Report - Multifocal Disease
A 48-year-old woman with dense breast tissue and a prior
negative biopsy reported dimpling in her right breast near the
nipple. Mammographic findings revealed no mass or spiculation and
no significant changes from 2 years prior (Figure 1). Ultrasound
examination showed a hypoechoic area thought to be scarring from
the earlier procedure. The patient was asked to return for
follow-up in 6 months, but returned in 8 weeks, reporting an
increase in the dimpling.
Follow-up ultrasound noted fibrocystic change but no discrete
mass. BSGI was performed, and a 2-cm area of increased uptake was
noted in the upper-inner quadrant of the breast (Figure 2). A 1-cm
area of more intense focus was noted at the 6 o'clock position.
There was also increased activity in the right axilla. BSGI
findings for the left breast were negative.
Following BSGI, MR imaging was performed. The lesion at the 6
o'clock position on her right breast clearly enhanced and there was
mild, non-specific enhancement at the 12 o'clock position in the
same breast. The MRI also showed some enhancement in the left
breast. A needle biopsy on the lesion at 6 o'clock in the right
breast confirmed the presence of infiltrating ductal carcinoma. A
generalized core biopsy was performed at the 12 o'clock position,
the findings of which were considered to be benign. A repeat MRI
was performed on the left breast with the intention of doing an
MRI-guided needle biopsy, but no lesion was seen at that time and
the initial MR results for her left breast were considered to be a
false positive.
A lumpectomy at the 6 o'clock position was performed, and a
1.2-cm moderately differentiated ductal carcinoma was removed. A
localized excision of the area of focal uptake on BSGI in the
upper-inner quadrant was also performed, and a 2-cm DCIS (Ductal
Carcinoma in Situ) and positive axillary nodes were confirmed.
In this case, BSGI detected multifocal disease in a patient with
negative findings on both mammogram and ultrasound while MR
indicated showed enhancement in an area later confirmed by
pathology to be negative.
Case Report - Lobular Carcinoma
A 59-year-old woman presented with deformity of the left breast
due to lumpectomy and radiation therapy for breast cancer 8 years
prior. Ultrasound examination at the lumpectomy site showed a
pattern of focal hypoechogenicity consistent with scar tissue but
the presence of an underlying tumor could not be excluded. BSGI
examination revealed a 7-mm area of abnormal isotope uptake (Figure
3). Repeat ultrasound showed only a blackout from the scar
tissue.
With MR imaging (Figure 4), the entire scar tissue enhanced;
however, a small area of additional enhancement was noted in the
area corresponding to the finding on BSGI. MR-guided biopsy was
performed based on the BSGI findings and invasive lobular carcinoma
was diagnosed. The patient underwent mastectomy, and the only
cancer found was the 7-mm area seen with BSGI. In this case the MR
results were non-specifically positive, but the BSGI, which was
focally positive, allowed the radiologist to target the specific
area of concern for biopsy.
Conclusion
"I don't think there is going to be one single breast imaging
modality that is 100% accurate all the time in picking up breast
cancer, at least not in my lifetime" said Bertrand. "I think it's
going be a combination of imaging modalities, and our goal, at
least for the next few years, should be to narrow that down to the
most accurate and cost-effective methods of diagnosing breast
cancer."
"From my practice experience," she concluded. "BSGI is an
optimal adjunctive screening tool to mammography for some high-risk
patients, and may be better than MRI for screening because it is
more accessible, faster, easier on the patient, and more affordable
."