PURPOSE: To compare prospectively obtained static two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonographic (US) images in the diagnostic performance of radiologists with respect to the differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses with histopathologic examination as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval, and patient informed consent was obtained. Conventional 2D and 3D US images were obtained from 141 patients (age range, 25-71 years; mean age, 46 years) with 150 solid breast masses (60 cancers and 90 benign lesions) before excisonal or needle biopsy. Four radiologists who had not performed the examinations independently reviewed 2D US images and stored 3D US data and provided a level of suspicion concerning probability of malignancy. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values of 2D images were compared with those of 3D US images. RESULTS: For all readers, 3D US images were the same as or better than 2D US images in terms of sensitivity (100% vs 100% for reader 1; 100% vs 98% for reader 2; 98% vs 93% for reader 3; 93% vs 92% for reader 4), specificity (58% vs 56% for reader 1; 51% vs 46% for reader 2; 83% vs 72% for reader 3; 86% vs 84% for reader 4), and negative predictive values (100% vs 100% for reader 1; 100% vs 98% for reader 2; 99% vs 94% for reader 3; 95% vs 94% for reader 4). These differences, however, were not statistically significant (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The performance of the radiologists with respect to the characterization of solid breast masses with static 2D US images was similar to that with 3D US data. RSNA, 2006
PURPOSE: To compare prospectively obtained static two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonographic (US) images in the diagnostic performance of radiologists with respect to the differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses with histopathologic examination as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval, and patient informed consent was obtained. Conventional 2D and 3D US images were obtained from 141 patients (age range, 25-71 years; mean age, 46 years) with 150 solid breast masses (60 cancers and 90 benign lesions) before excisonal or needle biopsy. Four radiologists who had not performed the examinations independently reviewed 2D US images and stored 3D US data and provided a level of suspicion concerning probability of malignancy. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values of 2D images were compared with those of 3D US images. RESULTS: For all readers, 3D US images were the same as or better than 2D US images in terms of sensitivity (100% vs 100% for reader 1; 100% vs 98% for reader 2; 98% vs 93% for reader 3; 93% vs 92% for reader 4), specificity (58% vs 56% for reader 1; 51% vs 46% for reader 2; 83% vs 72% for reader 3; 86% vs 84% for reader 4), and negative predictive values (100% vs 100% for reader 1; 100% vs 98% for reader 2; 99% vs 94% for reader 3; 95% vs 94% for reader 4). These differences, however, were not statistically significant (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The performance of the radiologists with respect to the characterization of solid breast masses with static 2D US images was similar to that with 3D US data. RSNA, 2006
Authors: Su Hyun Lee; Jung Min Chang; Won Hwa Kim; Min Sun Bae; Nariya Cho; Ann Yi; Hye Ryoung Koo; Seung Ja Kim; Jin You Kim; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-10-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rungroj Jintamethasawat; Xiaohui Zhang; Paul L Carson; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Oliver D Kripfgans Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-10-12