Literature DB >> 14770402

Analysis of sonographic features for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors of different sizes.

S-C Chen1, Y-C Cheung, C-H Su, M-F Chen, T-L Hwang, S Hsueh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the value of various sonographic features in differentiating benign from malignant breast tumors of different sizes to improve the diagnostic accuracy in small lesions.
METHODS: The sonographic features of 1203 histologically confirmed solid breast lesions were prospectively documented with respect to anteroposterior (AP) diameter/width ratio, shape, margin, echogenicity, echotexture, posterior echo and bilateral refraction sign. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of breast ultrasound were calculated for lesions grouped according to size (< or = 1, 1.1-2 and > 2 cm). Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses including calculation of odds ratios for single sonographic features were used to analyze the significance of the different diagnostic features.
RESULTS: The accuracy of breast sonography in differentiating between benign and malignant tumors < or = 1, 1.1-2 and > 2 cm in size was 75.6%, 86.4% and 88.4%, respectively. Univariate analysis demonstrated that all sonographic features were significant in tumors > or = 1.1 cm. Shape, margin, echogenicity and echotexture were the significant factors in those tumors < or = 1 cm. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that margin, shape, posterior echo and echogenicity were the significant factors for differential diagnosis in tumors > 2 cm. Echogenicity, margin, shape, bilateral refraction sign and echotexture were the significant factors for tumors 1.1-2 cm. On multiple regression analysis, margin was the only significant factor for tumors < or = 1 cm.
CONCLUSION: Tumor margin is the most important sonographic feature in evaluating breast lesions in any size group. With the combination of significant factors and emphasis on specific features according to size of lesion, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign tumors may be improved. Copyright 2003 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14770402     DOI: 10.1002/uog.930

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  17 in total

1.  Classification of benign and malignant breast masses based on shape and texture features in sonography images.

Authors:  Fahimeh Sadat Zakeri; Hamid Behnam; Nasrin Ahmadinejad
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Diagnostic value of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification for benign and malignant breast lesions with different sizes.

Authors:  Hui Liu; Li-Xia Zhao; Guang Xu; Ming-Hua Yao; Ai-Hong Zhang; Hui-Xiong Xu; Rong Wu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

3.  Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification.

Authors:  M Costantini; P Belli; C Ierardi; G Franceschini; G La Torre; L Bonomo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) in the diagnostic value of thyroid nodules: a systematic review.

Authors:  Xi Wei; Ying Li; Sheng Zhang; Ming Gao
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-04-11

5.  Update on Breast Cancer Detection Using Comb-Push Ultrasound Shear Elastography.

Authors:  Max Denis; Mahdi Bayat; Mohammad Mehrmohammadi; Adriana Gregory; Pengfei Song; Dana H Whaley; Sandhya Pruthi; Shigao Chen; Mostafa Fatemi; Azra Alizad
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.725

6.  Axial-shear strain imaging for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses.

Authors:  Haiyan Xu; Min Rao; Tomy Varghese; Amy Sommer; Sara Baker; Timothy J Hall; Gale A Sisney; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Volumetric tri-modal imaging with combined photoacoustic, ultrasound, and shear wave elastography.

Authors:  Emily Zheng; Huijuan Zhang; Wentao Hu; Marvin M Doyley; Jun Xia
Journal:  J Appl Phys       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 2.877

8.  Interobserver concordance in the BI-RADS classification of breast ultrasound exams.

Authors:  Maria Julia G Calas; Renan M V R Almeida; Bianca Gutfilen; Wagner C A Pereira
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.365

9.  The contribution of three-dimensional power Doppler imaging in the preoperative assessment of breast tumors: a preliminary report.

Authors:  K Kalmantis; C Dimitrakakis; Ch Koumpis; A Tsigginou; N Papantoniou; S Mesogitis; A Antsaklis
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2009

10.  Ultrasonographic characteristics of mammographically occult small breast cancer.

Authors:  Pornpim Korpraphong; Oranan Tritanon; Woranuj Tangcharoensathien; Tamnit Angsusinha; Suebwong Chuthapisith
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.