Jan C M Van Zelst1, Bram Platel2, Nico Karssemeijer2, Ritse M Mann2. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Internal Postal Code 766, PO-Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands. Electronic address: Jan.vanZelst@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Internal Postal Code 766, PO-Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the value of multiplanar reconstructions (MPRs) of automated three-dimensional (3D) breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared to transverse evaluation only, in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five breast radiologists evaluated ABUS scans of 96 female patients with biopsy-proven abnormalities (36 malignant and 60 benign). They classified the most suspicious lesion based on the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon using the transverse scans only. A likelihood-of-malignancy (LOM) score (0-100) and a BI-RADS final assessment were assigned. Thereafter, the MPR was provided and readers scored the cases again. In addition, they rated the presence of spiculation and retraction in the coronal plane on a five-point scale called Spiculation and Retraction Severity Index (SRSI). Reader performance was analyzed with receiver-operating characteristics analysis. RESULTS: The area under the curve increased from 0.82 to 0.87 (P = .01) after readers were shown the reconstructed planes. The SRSI scores are highly correlated (Spearman's r) with the final LOM scores (range, r = 0.808-0.872) and ΔLOM scores (range, r = 0.525-0.836). Readers downgraded 3%-18% of the biopsied benign lesions to BI-RADS 2 after MPR evaluation. Inter-reader agreement for SRSI was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.617). Inter-reader agreement of the BI-RADS final assessment improved from 0.367 to 0.536 after MPRs were read. CONCLUSIONS: Full 3D evaluation of ABUS using MPR improves differentiation of breast lesions in comparison to evaluating only transverse planes. Results suggest that the added value of MPR might be related to visualization of spiculation and retraction patterns in the coronal reconstructions.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the value of multiplanar reconstructions (MPRs) of automated three-dimensional (3D) breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared to transverse evaluation only, in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five breast radiologists evaluated ABUS scans of 96 female patients with biopsy-proven abnormalities (36 malignant and 60 benign). They classified the most suspicious lesion based on the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon using the transverse scans only. A likelihood-of-malignancy (LOM) score (0-100) and a BI-RADS final assessment were assigned. Thereafter, the MPR was provided and readers scored the cases again. In addition, they rated the presence of spiculation and retraction in the coronal plane on a five-point scale called Spiculation and Retraction Severity Index (SRSI). Reader performance was analyzed with receiver-operating characteristics analysis. RESULTS: The area under the curve increased from 0.82 to 0.87 (P = .01) after readers were shown the reconstructed planes. The SRSI scores are highly correlated (Spearman's r) with the final LOM scores (range, r = 0.808-0.872) and ΔLOM scores (range, r = 0.525-0.836). Readers downgraded 3%-18% of the biopsied benign lesions to BI-RADS 2 after MPR evaluation. Inter-reader agreement for SRSI was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.617). Inter-reader agreement of the BI-RADS final assessment improved from 0.367 to 0.536 after MPRs were read. CONCLUSIONS: Full 3D evaluation of ABUS using MPR improves differentiation of breast lesions in comparison to evaluating only transverse planes. Results suggest that the added value of MPR might be related to visualization of spiculation and retraction patterns in the coronal reconstructions.
Authors: Julia Schwaab; Yago Diez; Arnau Oliver; Robert Martí; Jan van Zelst; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Ahmed Bensouda Mourri; Johannes Gregori; Matthias Günther Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-04-25
Authors: Bo Ra Kwon; Jung Min Chang; Soo Yeon Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Soo Yeon Kim; So Min Lee; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Anna D'Angelo; Gianluca Gatta; Graziella Di Grezia; Sara Mercogliano; Francesca Ferrara; Charlotte Marguerite Lucille Trombadori; Antonio Franco; Alessandro Cina; Paolo Belli; Riccardo Manfredi Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Jan C M van Zelst; Tao Tan; Paola Clauser; Angels Domingo; Monique D Dorrius; Daniel Drieling; Michael Golatta; Francisca Gras; Mathijn de Jong; Ruud Pijnappel; Matthieu J C M Rutten; Nico Karssemeijer; Ritse M Mann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 5.315