Literature DB >> 23269714

Breast mass characterization using 3-dimensional automated ultrasound as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot study.

Frederic Padilla1, Marilyn A Roubidoux, Chintana Paramagul, Sumedha P Sinha, Mitchell M Goodsitt, Gerald L Le Carpentier, Heang-Ping Chan, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, J Brian Fowlkes, Annette D Joe, Katherine A Klein, Alexis V Nees, Mitra Noroozian, Stephanie K Patterson, Renee W Pinsky, Fong Ming Hooi, Paul L Carson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the effect of 3-dimensional automated ultrasound (3D-AUS) as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on radiologists' performance and confidence in discriminating malignant and benign breast masses.
METHODS: Two-view DBT (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique or lateral) and single-view 3D-AUS images were acquired from 51 patients with subsequently biopsy-proven masses (13 malignant and 38 benign). Six experienced radiologists rated, on a 13-point scale, the likelihood of malignancy of an identified mass, first by reading the DBT images alone, followed immediately by reading the DBT images with automatically coregistered 3D-AUS images. The diagnostic performance of each method was measured using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and changes in sensitivity and specificity with the McNemar test. After each reading, radiologists took a survey to rate their confidence level in using DBT alone versus combined DBT/3D-AUS as potential screening modalities.
RESULTS: The 6 radiologists had an average area under the ROC curve of 0.92 for both modalities (range, 0.89-0.97 for DBT and 0.90-0.94 for DBT/3D-AUS). With a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System rating of 4 as the threshold for biopsy recommendation, the average sensitivity of the radiologists increased from 96% to 100% (P > .08) with 3D-AUS, whereas the specificity decreased from 33% to 25% (P > .28). Survey responses indicated increased confidence in potentially using DBT for screening when 3D-AUS was added (P < .05 for each reader).
CONCLUSIONS: In this initial reader study, no significant difference in ROC performance was found with the addition of 3D-AUS to DBT. However, a trend to improved discrimination of malignancy was observed when adding 3D-AUS. Radiologists' confidence also improved with DBT/3DAUS compared to DBT alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23269714      PMCID: PMC3556642          DOI: 10.7863/jum.2013.32.1.93

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ultrasound Med        ISSN: 0278-4297            Impact factor:   2.153


  40 in total

Review 1.  Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.

Authors:  David Gur; Howard E Rockette; Derek R Armfield; Arye Blachar; Jennifer K Bogan; Giuseppe Brancatelli; Cynthia A Britton; Manuel L Brown; Peter L Davis; James V Ferris; Carl R Fuhrman; Sara K Golla; Sanj Katyal; Joan M Lacomis; Barry M McCook; F Leland Thaete; Thomas E Warfel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Ajay Kapur; Paul L Carson; Jeffrey Eberhard; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Kai Thomenius; Murtuza Lokhandwalla; Donald Buckley; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie; Rebecca C Booi; Gerald L LeCarpentier; Ramon Q Erkamp; Heang-Ping Chan; J Brian Fowlkes; Jerry A Thomas; Cynthia E Landberg
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2004-08

Review 5.  The role of US in breast imaging.

Authors:  V P Jackson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Occult breast masses: use of a mammographic localizing grid for US evaluation.

Authors:  W F Conway; C W Hayes; W H Brewer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.875

8.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Real-time breast sonography: application in 300 consecutive patients.

Authors:  S V Hilton; G R Leopold; L K Olson; S A Willson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Ultrasound as a complement to mammography and breast examination to characterize breast masses.

Authors:  Kenneth J W Taylor; Christopher Merritt; Catherine Piccoli; Robert Schmidt; Glenn Rouse; Bruno Fornage; Eva Rubin; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Fred Winsberg; Barry Goldberg; Ellen Mendelson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.998

View more
  10 in total

1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Preliminary Clinical Experience with a Combined Automated Breast Ultrasound and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis System.

Authors:  Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Cynthia E Davis; Oliver D Kripfgans; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Improved digital breast tomosynthesis images using automated ultrasound.

Authors:  Xing Zhang; Jie Yuan; Sidan Du; Oliver D Kripfgans; Xueding Wang; Paul L Carson; Xiaojun Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Initial results of the FUSION-X-US prototype combining 3D automated breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Benedikt Schaefgen; Joerg Heil; Richard G Barr; Marcus Radicke; Aba Harcos; Christina Gomez; Anne Stieber; André Hennigs; Alexandra von Au; Julia Spratte; Geraldine Rauch; Joachim Rom; Florian Schütz; Christof Sohn; Michael Golatta
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Testing a dual-modality system that combines full-field digital mammography and automated breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Christopher L Vaughan; Tania S Douglas; Qonita Said-Hartley; Roland V Baasch; James A Boonzaier; Brian C Goemans; John Harverson; Michael W Mingay; Shuaib Omar; Raphael V Smith; Nielen C Venter; Heidi S Wilson
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 1.605

6.  Automated Breast Ultrasound: Dual-Sided Compared with Single-Sided Imaging.

Authors:  Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchel M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Fouzaan Zafar; Oliver D Kripfgans; Kai Thomenius; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Automated 3D ultrasound image segmentation to aid breast cancer image interpretation.

Authors:  Peng Gu; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Jie Yuan; Xueding Wang; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  Combined photoacoustic and acoustic imaging of human breast specimens in the mammographic geometry.

Authors:  Zhixing Xie; Fong Ming Hooi; J Brian Fowlkes; Renee W Pinsky; Xueding Wang; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 9.  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

Review 10.  Advances in managing breast cancer: a clinical update.

Authors:  Ayca Gucalp; Gaorav P Gupta; Melissa L Pilewskie; Elizabeth J Sutton; Larry Norton
Journal:  F1000Prime Rep       Date:  2014-08-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.