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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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