Literature DB >> 17646366

Tissue harmonic imaging, frequency compound imaging, and conventional imaging: use and benefit in breast sonography.

Benoît Mesurolle1, Tarek Helou, Mona El-Khoury, Michael Edwardes, Elizabeth J Sutton, Ellen Kao.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate different sonographic settings (tissue harmonic, frequency compounding, and conventional imaging) and to determine which setting optimizes breast lesion detection and lesion characterization.
METHODS: Four hundred thirteen consecutive breast lesions (249 benign and 164 malignant) were evaluated by sonography using 4 different modes (conventional imaging at 14 MHz, tissue harmonic imaging at 14 MHz [THI], and frequency compound imaging at 10 MHz [CI10] and 14 MHz [CI14]). The images were reviewed by consensus by 2 breast radiologists. For each image, the lesion was graded for conspicuity, mass margin assessment, echo texture assessment, overall image quality, and posterior acoustic features.
RESULTS: For lesion conspicuity, THI and CI14 were better than conventional imaging (P < .01) and CI10 (P < .01) particularly against a fatty background (P < .01 for THI versus conventional for a fatty background versus P = .13 for a dense background). Frequency compound imaging at 10 MHz performed the best in echo texture assessment (P < .01), as well as overall image quality (P < .01). For margin assessment, CI10 performed better for deep and large (> or =1.5-cm) lesions, whereas CI14 performed better for small (<1.5-cm) and superficial lesions. Finally, THI and CI14 increased posterior shadowing (P < .01) and posterior enhancement (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The standard breast examination incorporates 2 distinct processes, lesion detection and lesion characterization. With respect to detection, THI is useful, especially in fatty breasts. With respect to characterization, compound imaging improves lesion echo texture assessment. No single setting in isolation can provide the necessary optimized information for both of these tasks. As such, a combination approach is best.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17646366     DOI: 10.7863/jum.2007.26.8.1041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ultrasound Med        ISSN: 0278-4297            Impact factor:   2.153


  6 in total

Review 1.  [Modern gray-scale sonography of the breast].

Authors:  N K Wöhrle; K Hellerhoff; M F Reiser; D-A Clevert
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Comparison of conventional B-scan, tissue harmonic imaging, compound imaging and tissue harmonic compound imaging in neck lesion characterisation.

Authors:  Alessandro Bozzato; Anne Loika; Joachim Hornung; Michael Koch; Johannes Zenk; Wolfgang Uter; Heinrich Iro
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  EUS Needle Identification Comparison and Evaluation study (with videos).

Authors:  Shou-Jiang Tang; Andreas S Vilmann; Adrian Saftoiu; Wanmei Wang; Costin Teodor Streba; Peter P Fink; Michael Griswold; Ruonan Wu; Christoph F Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Michael Hocke; Marcus Kantowski; Jürgen Pohl; Paul Fockens; Jouke T Annema; Erik H F M van der Heijden; Roald Flesland Havre; Khanh Do-Cong Pham; Rastislav Kunda; Pierre H Deprez; Jinga Mariana; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Alberto Larghi; Elisabetta Buscarini; Pietro Fusaroli; Maor Lahav; Rajesh Puri; Pramod Kumar Garg; Malay Sharma; Fauze Maluf-Filho; Anand Sahai; William R Brugge; Linda S Lee; Harry R Aslanian; Andrew Y Wang; Vanessa M Shami; Arnold Markowitz; Ali A Siddiqui; Girish Mishra; James M Scheiman; Gerard Isenberg; Uzma D Siddiqui; Raj J Shah; James Buxbaum; Rabindra R Watson; Field F Willingham; Manoop S Bhutani; Michael J Levy; Cynthia Harris; Michael B Wallace; Christian Pállson Nolsøe; Torben Lorentzen; Niels Bang; Sten Mellerup Sørensen; Odd Helge Gilja; Mirko D'Onofrio; Fabio Piscaglia; Norbert Gritzmann; Maija Radzina; Zeno Adrian Sparchez; Paul S Sidhu; Simon Freeman; Timothy C McCowan; Cyrillo Rodrigues de Araujo; Akash Patel; Mohammad Adel Ali; Garth Campbell; Edward Chen; Peter Vilmann
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Assessment of breast cancer tumour size using six different methods.

Authors:  Martina Meier-Meitinger; Lothar Häberle; Peter A Fasching; Mayada R Bani; Katharina Heusinger; David Wachter; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael Uder; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Boris Adamietz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Retroareolar Carcinomas in Breast Ultrasound: Pearls and Pitfalls.

Authors:  Romuald Ferré; Martine Paré; Lisa Smith; Mélanie Thériault; Ann Aldis; Ellen Kao; Benoit Mesurolle
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  The effect of accompanying in situ ductal carcinoma on accuracy of measuring malignant breast tumor size using B-mode ultrasonography and real-time sonoelastography.

Authors:  A A Soliman; S Wojcinski; F Degenhardt
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2012-09-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.