Literature DB >> 21274716

US-guided diffuse optical tomography for breast lesions: the reliability of clinical experience.

Min Jung Kim1, Ji Youn Kim, Jung Hyun Youn, Myung Hyun Kim, Hye Ryoung Koo, Soo Jin Kim, Yu-Mee Sohn, Hee Jung Moon, Eun-Kyung Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the reliability of US-guided diffuse optical tomography (US-DOT) using interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of breast lesions with individual real-time imaging and to assess the interobserver agreement of conventional sonography (US) combined with US-DOT for differentiation between benignity and malignancy breast lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Institutional Review Board approved this study, and all subjects provided written informed consent. 122 breast lesions in 111 patients evaluated with US-guided core biopsy were included. Assessments with US and US-DOT for cases subjected to biopsy were obtained by two radiologists using individual real-time imaging prior to biopsy and were prospectively recorded by each performer. With DOT, the total haemoglobin concentration (THC) for each breast lesion was measured. Histopathological results from US-guided biopsies were used as a reference standard. To assess measurement interobserver agreement, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman plot were used for THC in US-DOT and the kappa values and ROC analysis were used to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the US BI-RADS final assessment in US and combined US and US-DOT.
RESULTS: Of 122 US-guided core biopsied lesions, 83 (68.0%) were diagnosed as benign, and 39 (32.0%) as malignant. Excellent correlation was seen in the THC in US-DOT (ICC score 0.796; 95% confidence interval, 0.708-0.857). The interobserver agreement in BI-RADS final assessment with US and US-DOT (almost perfect; κ = 0.8618) was improved compared with that of US (substantial agreement, κ = 0.6574). However, the overall areas under the ROC curve did not show significant differences between US and combined US and US-DOT, 0.8894 and 0.8975, respectively (P = 0.981).
CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of THC in US-DOT showed excellent correlation in overall real-time performance. Although the inter-observer agreement for BI-RADS final assessment of US was improved by using US-DOT, the performances of radiologists with respect to the characterization of breast masses as benign or malignant were not significantly improved with US-DOT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21274716     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2060-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  32 in total

1.  BI-RADS data should not be used to estimate ROC curves.

Authors:  Yulei Jiang; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging--clinical experience of multiple observers.

Authors:  Dawn M Regner; Gina K Hesley; Nicholas J Hangiandreou; Marilyn J Morton; Michelle R Nordland; Duane D Meixner; Timothy J Hall; Michael A Farrell; Jayawant N Mandrekar; W Scott Harmsen; J William Charboneau
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Current improvements in breast ultrasound, with a special focus on elastography.

Authors:  Eriko Tohno; Ei Ueno
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.239

5.  Induction of angiogenesis during the transition from hyperplasia to neoplasia.

Authors:  J Folkman; K Watson; D Ingber; D Hanahan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1989-05-04       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Early-stage invasive breast cancers: potential role of optical tomography with US localization in assisting diagnosis.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Poornima U Hegde; Andrew Ricci; Mark Kane; Edward B Cronin; Yasaman Ardeshirpour; Chen Xu; Andres Aguirre; Scott H Kurtzman; Peter J Deckers; Susan H Tannenbaum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Nonpalpable breast lesions: evaluation with power Doppler US and a microbubble contrast agent-initial experience.

Authors:  W K Moon; J G Im; D Y Noh; M C Han
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup.

Authors:  W Buchberger; P DeKoekkoek-Doll; P Springer; P Obrist; M Dünser
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Ultrasound-guided optical tomographic imaging of malignant and benign breast lesions: initial clinical results of 19 cases.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Minming Huang; NanGuang Chen; Kristen Zarfos; Bipin Jagjivan; Mark Kane; Poornima Hedge; Scott H Kurtzman
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.715

10.  Infrared light scanning of the breast.

Authors:  R Lafreniere; F S Ashkar; A S Ketcham
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 0.688

View more
  4 in total

1.  Light-emitting diode-based multiwavelength diffuse optical tomography system guided by ultrasound.

Authors:  Guangqian Yuan; Umar Alqasemi; Aaron Chen; Yi Yang; Quing Zhu
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.170

Review 2.  A review of optical breast imaging: Multi-modality systems for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Steven Poplack
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Effect of vascular haemoglobin concentrations on ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions.

Authors:  Ning Lv; Ni He; Yaopan Wu; Chuanmiao Xie; Yue Wang; Yanan Kong; Weidong Wei; Peihong Wu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  US-localized diffuse optical tomography in breast cancer: comparison with pharmacokinetic parameters of DCE-MRI and with pathologic biomarkers.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Min-Ying Su; Hon J Yu; Jeon-Hor Chen; Eun-Kyung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Ji Soo Choi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.430

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.