RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to preliminarily assess the performance of a new, resonance-frequency electrical impedance spectroscopy (REIS) system in identifying young women who were recommended to undergo breast biopsy following imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A seven-probe REIS system was designed and assembled and is currently being prospectively tested. During examination, contact is made with the nipple and six concentric points on the breast skin. Signal sweeps are performed, and outputs ranging from 200 to 800 kHz at 5-kHz intervals are recorded. An initial set of 140 patients, including 56 who eventually had biopsies, 63 who had negative results on screening mammography, and 21 recalled for additional imaging but later determined to have negative results, was used. An initial set of 35 features, 33 representing impedance signal differences between breasts and two representing participant age and average breast density, was assembled and reduced by a genetic algorithm to 14. The performance of an artificial neural network-based classifier was assessed using a case-based leave-one-out method. RESULTS: The substantially greater asymmetry between signals of mirror-matched regions ascertained from biopsy ("positive") compared to nonbiopsy ("negative") cases resulted in an artificial neural network classifier performance (area under the curve) of 0.830 ± 0.023. At 90% specificity, this classifier, optimized for "recommendation for biopsy" rather than "cancer," detected 30 REIS-positive cases (54%), including six of nine (67%) actual cancer cases and six of nine women (67%) recommended for surgical excision of high-risk lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Asymmetry in impedance measurements between bilateral breasts may provide valuable discriminatory information regarding the presence of highly suspicious imaging-based findings. Copyright Â
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to preliminarily assess the performance of a new, resonance-frequency electrical impedance spectroscopy (REIS) system in identifying young women who were recommended to undergo breast biopsy following imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A seven-probe REIS system was designed and assembled and is currently being prospectively tested. During examination, contact is made with the nipple and six concentric points on the breast skin. Signal sweeps are performed, and outputs ranging from 200 to 800 kHz at 5-kHz intervals are recorded. An initial set of 140 patients, including 56 who eventually had biopsies, 63 who had negative results on screening mammography, and 21 recalled for additional imaging but later determined to have negative results, was used. An initial set of 35 features, 33 representing impedance signal differences between breasts and two representing participant age and average breast density, was assembled and reduced by a genetic algorithm to 14. The performance of an artificial neural network-based classifier was assessed using a case-based leave-one-out method. RESULTS: The substantially greater asymmetry between signals of mirror-matched regions ascertained from biopsy ("positive") compared to nonbiopsy ("negative") cases resulted in an artificial neural network classifier performance (area under the curve) of 0.830 ± 0.023. At 90% specificity, this classifier, optimized for "recommendation for biopsy" rather than "cancer," detected 30 REIS-positive cases (54%), including six of nine (67%) actual cancer cases and six of nine women (67%) recommended for surgical excision of high-risk lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Asymmetry in impedance measurements between bilateral breasts may provide valuable discriminatory information regarding the presence of highly suspicious imaging-based findings. Copyright Â
Authors: Yaël A Glickman; Orna Filo; Udi Nachaliel; Sarah Lenington; Sigal Amin-Spector; Ron Ginor Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Steven P Poplack; Keith D Paulsen; Alexander Hartov; Paul M Meaney; Brian W Pogue; Tor D Tosteson; Margaret R Grove; Sandra K Soho; Wendy A Wells Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Todd E Kerner; Keith D Paulsen; Alex Hartov; Sandra K Soho; Steven P Poplack Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joanna Gariani; Steve P Martin; Anne-Lise Hachulla; Wolfram Karenovics; Dan Adler; Paola M Soccal; Chirstoph D Becker; Xavier Montet Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.817