Literature DB >> 26209049

Quantitative differentiation of benign and malignant mammographic circumscribed masses using intensity histograms.

Tomoyuki Ohta1, Norio Nakata2, Makiko Nishioka3, Takao Igarashi4, Kunihiko Fukuda5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the usefulness of density gradient of mammographic masses for differentiating benign from malignant lesions, particularly circumscribed masses, which are difficult to diagnose by shape.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom experiments were performed and diagnostic mammography examinations were reviewed. Mammograms of three acrylic resin globes differing in hardness were acquired with/without applied pressure, and density gradients were examined on intensity histograms with standard deviation (SD) as a hardness index. Similar analyses were performed using clinical mammographic examinations of circumscribed mass lesions. The usefulness of SD for differentiating between benign and malignant lesions was investigated by ROC curve analysis and minimum/maximum values of malignant and benign lesions, respectively.
RESULTS: For circumscribed masses (n = 196, benign, n = 176; malignant, n = 20), ROC analysis showed AUC = 0.786, with sensitivity = 70.0 %, specificity = 70.5 %, accuracy = 70.4 %, positive predictive value = 21.1 %, and negative predictive value = 95.4 % at SD = 64.46. Minimum and maximum SD of malignant and benign masses were 39.1 and 241.7, respectively.
CONCLUSION: On mammography, circumscribed masses can be diagnosed with moderate accuracy using the intensity histogram SD. Masses with SD below the minimum of breast cancer can be roughly diagnosed as clinically benign.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hardness; Intensity histogram; Mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26209049     DOI: 10.1007/s11604-015-0456-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Jpn J Radiol        ISSN: 1867-1071            Impact factor:   2.374


  7 in total

1.  Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression.

Authors:  T A Krouskop; T M Wheeler; F Kallel; B S Garra; T Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.578

2.  Well defined masses in the breast.

Authors:  L P Marsteller; E Shaw de Paredes
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 5.333

3.  Circumscribed mass lesions on mammography: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to differentiate malignancy and benignancy.

Authors:  Takashi Okafuji; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Hiroyasu Soeda; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Shuji Sakai; Masamitsu Hatakenaka; Syoji Kuroki; Eriko Tokunaga; Hidetaka Yamamoto; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.471

4.  The evolution of breast imaging: past to present.

Authors:  Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Breast masses: mammographic evaluation.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Low-dose mammography.

Authors:  B J Ostrum; W Becker; H J Isard
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1973-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.

Authors:  J A Baker; P J Kornguth; C E Floyd
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.959

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Diagnosis of Breast Cancer Using Radiomics Models Built Based on Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI Combined With Mammography.

Authors:  You-Fan Zhao; Zhongwei Chen; Yang Zhang; Jiejie Zhou; Jeon-Hor Chen; Kyoung Eun Lee; Freddie J Combs; Ritesh Parajuli; Rita S Mehta; Meihao Wang; Min-Ying Su
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 6.244

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.