Literature DB >> 21947512

Diagnostic performance of a Near-Infrared Breast Imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone.

F Collettini1, J C Martin, F Diekmann, E Fallenberg, F Engelken, S Ponder, T J Kroencke, B Hamm, A Poellinger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Radiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus Near-Infrared Breast Imaging (NIBI) was compared with mammography alone.
METHODS: Two hundred seventy-six consecutive patients with suspected breast lesions underwent both mammography and NIBI. Four blinded radiologists independently first reviewed the mammograms alone. Readers subsequently reviewed the mammograms in combination with NIBI. The diagnostic benefit of NIBI as an adjunct to mammography was determined by performing receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses for each reader based on BI-RADS categories (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) and LOS (level of suspicion) scores. Additionally, a multireader-multicase (ROC) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out.
RESULTS: For the LOS-based analysis, the combination of mammography and NIBI resulted in a slightly larger area under the curve (AUC) for all four readers. The analysis based on BI-RADS categories also demonstrated a slight increase in AUC for three readers for the combination of mammography and NIBI compared with mammography alone. For the fourth reader, AUC was smaller for the combination compared with mammography alone. Neither for the separate ROC-analyses nor for the ANOVA, significant differences between the two methods were obtained.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of mammography and NIBI did not perform significantly better than mammography alone. KEY POINTS: The intrinsic contrast provided by optical breast imaging may be inadequate We found slightly (but nonsignificant) higher accuracy for optical imaging and mammography compared with mammography alone. Contrast agents might be necessary to improve the performance of optical breast imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21947512     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2276-2

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


  36 in total

1.  Mammography screening among women aged 40-49 years shows no benefit.

Authors:  John Hoey
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Non-invasive in vivo characterization of breast tumors using photon migration spectroscopy.

Authors:  B J Tromberg; N Shah; R Lanning; A Cerussi; J Espinoza; T Pham; L Svaasand; J Butler
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2000 Jan-Apr       Impact factor: 5.715

3.  Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  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

6.  Characterization of benign and malignant breast lesions with computed tomography laser mammography (CTLM): initial experience.

Authors:  Daniel Floery; Thomas H Helbich; Christopher C Riedl; Silvia Jaromi; Michael Weber; Sepp Leodolter; Michael H Fuchsjaeger
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  In vivo absorption, scattering, and physiologic properties of 58 malignant breast tumors determined by broadband diffuse optical spectroscopy.

Authors:  Albert Cerussi; Natasha Shah; David Hsiang; Amanda Durkin; John Butler; Bruce J Tromberg
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.170

8.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Imaging in the era of molecular oncology.

Authors:  Ralph Weissleder; Mikael J Pittet
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Three-dimensional in vivo fluorescence diffuse optical tomography of breast cancer in humans.

Authors:  Alper Corlu; Regine Choe; Turgut Durduran; Mark A Rosen; Martin Schweiger; Simon R Arridge; Mitchell D Schnall; Arjun G Yodh
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2007-05-28       Impact factor: 3.894

View more
  7 in total

1.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis by reducing chest wall effect in diffuse optical tomography.

Authors:  Feifei Zhou; Atahar Mostafa; Quing Zhu
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.170

2.  Two step imaging reconstruction using truncated pseudoinverse as a preliminary estimate in ultrasound guided diffuse optical tomography.

Authors:  K M Shihab Uddin; Atahar Mostafa; Mark Anastasio; Quing Zhu
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 3.732

3.  Prospective assessment of adjunctive ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in women undergoing breast biopsy: Impact on BI-RADS assessments.

Authors:  Steven P Poplack; Catherine A Young; Ian S Hagemann; Jingqin Luo; Cheryl R Herman; Kimberly Wiele; Shuying Li; Yifeng Zeng; Matthew F Covington; Quing Zhu
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2021-11-13       Impact factor: 4.531

4.  Noninvasive Surface Imaging of Breast Cancer in Humans using a Hand-held Optical Imager.

Authors:  Sarah J Erickson-Bhatt; Manuela Roman; Jean Gonzalez; Annie Nunez; Richard Kiszonas; Cristina Lopez-Penalver; Anuradha Godavarty
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2015-10-23

5.  Assessment of Functional Differences in Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions and Improvement of Diagnostic Accuracy by Using US-guided Diffuse Optical Tomography in Conjunction with Conventional US.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Andrew Ricci; Poornima Hegde; Mark Kane; Edward Cronin; Alex Merkulov; Yan Xu; Behnoosh Tavakoli; Susan Tannenbaum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Optical imaging of tumor vascularity associated with proliferation and glucose metabolism in early breast cancer: clinical application of total hemoglobin measurements in the breast.

Authors:  Shigeto Ueda; Noriko Nakamiya; Kazuo Matsuura; Takashi Shigekawa; Hiroshi Sano; Eiko Hirokawa; Hiroko Shimada; Hiroaki Suzuki; Motoki Oda; Yutaka Yamashita; Osamu Kishino; Ichiei Kuji; Akihiko Osaki; Toshiaki Saeki
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 7.  Multi-reader multi-case studies using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve as a measure of diagnostic accuracy: systematic review with a focus on quality of data reporting.

Authors:  Thaworn Dendumrongsup; Andrew A Plumb; Steve Halligan; Thomas R Fanshawe; Douglas G Altman; Susan Mallett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.