PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a dedicated software tool for automated volume measurement of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance mammography (MRM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The size of 52 breast lesions with a known histopathological diagnosis (three benign, 49 malignant) was automatically evaluated using different techniques. The volume of all lesions was measured automatically (AVM) from CE 3D MRM examinations by means of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system and compared with the size estimates based on maximum diameter measurement (MDM) on MRM, ultrasonography (US), mammography and histopathology. RESULTS: Compared with histopathology as the reference method, AVM understimated lesion size by 4% on average. This result was similar to MDM (3% understimation, not significantly different) but significantly better than US and mammographic lesion measurements (24% and 33% size underestimation, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AVM is as accurate as MDM but faster. Both methods are more accurate for size assessment of breast lesions compared with US and mammography.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a dedicated software tool for automated volume measurement of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance mammography (MRM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The size of 52 breast lesions with a known histopathological diagnosis (three benign, 49 malignant) was automatically evaluated using different techniques. The volume of all lesions was measured automatically (AVM) from CE 3D MRM examinations by means of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system and compared with the size estimates based on maximum diameter measurement (MDM) on MRM, ultrasonography (US), mammography and histopathology. RESULTS: Compared with histopathology as the reference method, AVM understimated lesion size by 4% on average. This result was similar to MDM (3% understimation, not significantly different) but significantly better than US and mammographic lesion measurements (24% and 33% size underestimation, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AVM is as accurate as MDM but faster. Both methods are more accurate for size assessment of breast lesions compared with US and mammography.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Debasish Tripathy; Dulcy S Wolverton; Hope S Rugo; E Shelley Hwang; Cheryl A Ewing; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: F Sardanelli; G M Giuseppetti; G Canavese; L Cataliotti; S Corcione; E Cossu; M Federico; L Marotti; L Martincich; P Panizza; F Podo; M Rosselli Del Turco; C Zuiani; C Alfano; M Bazzocchi; P Belli; S Bianchi; A Cilotti; M Calabrese; L Carbonaro; L Cortesi; C Di Maggio; A Del Maschio; A Esseridou; A Fausto; M Gennaro; R Girometti; R Ienzi; A Luini; S Manoukian; S Morassutt; D Morrone; J Nori; A Orlacchio; F Pane; P Panzarola; R Ponzone; G Simonetti; P Torricelli; G Valeri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Pascal Andreas Thomas Baltzer; Christian Freiberg; Sebastian Beger; Tibor Vag; Matthias Dietzel; Aimee B Herzog; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Dan Sudilovsky; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Gilles; B Zafrani; J M Guinebretière; M Meunier; O Lucidarme; A A Tardivon; F Rochard; D Vanel; S Neuenschwander; R Arriagada Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lawrence J Solin; Susan G Orel; Wei-Ting Hwang; Eleanor E Harris; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wenya Linda Bi; Ahmed Hosny; Matthew B Schabath; Maryellen L Giger; Nicolai J Birkbak; Alireza Mehrtash; Tavis Allison; Omar Arnaout; Christopher Abbosh; Ian F Dunn; Raymond H Mak; Rulla M Tamimi; Clare M Tempany; Charles Swanton; Udo Hoffmann; Lawrence H Schwartz; Robert J Gillies; Raymond Y Huang; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 508.702