Mitsuhiro Tozaki1, Eisuke Fukuma. 1. Division of Breast Imaging, Breast Center, Kameda Medical Center, 929 Higashi-cho, Kamogawa, Chiba, 296-8602, Japan. e-tozaki@keh.biglobe.ne.jp
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the validity of categorization of ultrasonographic findings using automated breast ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral whole-breast US was performed using an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in 400 women. The 3D data were evaluated using the ABVS workstation, and final assessment categories were recorded based on the following criteria. Irregular-shaped masses with a spiculated margin or echogenic halo were defined as category 5. Solid masses with one of the three suspicious findings (no circumscribed margin, no parallel orientation, and microcalcifications) were defined as category 4a, and masses with two or more suspicious findings were defined as category 4b. For non-mass lesions, localized hypoechoic areas with one of the three suspicious findings (segmental distribution, ductal change, and microcalcifications) were defined as category 4a. Localized hypoechoic areas with two or three suspicious findings were defined as category 4b or 5, respectively. RESULTS: Malignancy was confirmed histologically in 57 women (invasive, n = 38; in situ, n = 19). The rate of malignant findings was 0.6% (1/168) in category 3, 12% (15/129) in category 4a, 53% (31/59) in category 4b and 100% (10/10) in category 5. CONCLUSION: Categorization of ultrasonographic findings using automated breast US are useful for predicting the likelihood of malignancy.
PURPOSE: To assess the validity of categorization of ultrasonographic findings using automated breast ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral whole-breast US was performed using an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in 400 women. The 3D data were evaluated using the ABVS workstation, and final assessment categories were recorded based on the following criteria. Irregular-shaped masses with a spiculated margin or echogenic halo were defined as category 5. Solid masses with one of the three suspicious findings (no circumscribed margin, no parallel orientation, and microcalcifications) were defined as category 4a, and masses with two or more suspicious findings were defined as category 4b. For non-mass lesions, localized hypoechoic areas with one of the three suspicious findings (segmental distribution, ductal change, and microcalcifications) were defined as category 4a. Localized hypoechoic areas with two or three suspicious findings were defined as category 4b or 5, respectively. RESULTS:Malignancy was confirmed histologically in 57 women (invasive, n = 38; in situ, n = 19). The rate of malignant findings was 0.6% (1/168) in category 3, 12% (15/129) in category 4a, 53% (31/59) in category 4b and 100% (10/10) in category 5. CONCLUSION: Categorization of ultrasonographic findings using automated breast US are useful for predicting the likelihood of malignancy.
Authors: K Flobbe; P J Nelemans; A G H Kessels; G L Beets; M F von Meyenfeldt; J M A van Engelshoven Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hee Jung Shin; Hak Hee Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Gui Young Kwon; Gyungyub Gong; On Koo Cho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Eun-Kyung Kim; Kyung Hee Ko; Ki Keun Oh; Jin Young Kwak; Jai Kyung You; Min Jung Kim; Byoung-Woo Park Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: D O Cosgrove; R P Kedar; J C Bamber; B al-Murrani; J B Davey; C Fisher; J A McKinna; W E Svensson; E Tohno; E Vagios Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 11.105