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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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