Literature DB >> 26429241

Determinants of the reliability of ultrasound tomography sound speed estimates as a surrogate for volumetric breast density.

Zeina G Khodr1, Mark A Sak2, Ruth M Pfeiffer1, Nebojsa Duric3, Peter Littrup3, Lisa Bey-Knight2, Haythem Ali4, Patricia Vallieres4, Mark E Sherman5, Gretchen L Gierach1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: High breast density, as measured by mammography, is associated with increased breast cancer risk, but standard methods of assessment have limitations including 2D representation of breast tissue, distortion due to breast compression, and use of ionizing radiation. Ultrasound tomography (UST) is a novel imaging method that averts these limitations and uses sound speed measures rather than x-ray imaging to estimate breast density. The authors evaluated the reproducibility of measures of speed of sound and changes in this parameter using UST.
METHODS: One experienced and five newly trained raters measured sound speed in serial UST scans for 22 women (two scans per person) to assess inter-rater reliability. Intrarater reliability was assessed for four raters. A random effects model was used to calculate the percent variation in sound speed and change in sound speed attributable to subject, scan, rater, and repeat reads. The authors estimated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for these measures based on data from the authors' experienced rater.
RESULTS: Median (range) time between baseline and follow-up UST scans was five (1-13) months. Contributions of factors to sound speed variance were differences between subjects (86.0%), baseline versus follow-up scans (7.5%), inter-rater evaluations (1.1%), and intrarater reproducibility (∼0%). When evaluating change in sound speed between scans, 2.7% and ∼0% of variation were attributed to inter- and intrarater variation, respectively. For the experienced rater's repeat reads, agreement for sound speed was excellent (ICC = 93.4%) and for change in sound speed substantial (ICC = 70.4%), indicating very good reproducibility of these measures.
CONCLUSIONS: UST provided highly reproducible sound speed measurements, which reflect breast density, suggesting that UST has utility in sensitively assessing change in density.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26429241      PMCID: PMC4567583          DOI: 10.1118/1.4929985

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  46 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Daniela Bernardi; Massimo Calabrese; Manuela Durando; Maria Adalgisa Gentilini; Giovanna Mariscotti; Francesco Monetti; Enrica Moriconi; Barbara Pesce; Antonella Roselli; Carmen Stevanin; Margherita Tapparelli; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Methods for assessing and representing mammographic density: an analysis of 4 case-control studies.

Authors:  Christy G Woolcott; Shannon M Conroy; Chisato Nagata; Giske Ursin; Celine M Vachon; Martin J Yaffe; Ian S Pagano; Celia Byrne; Gertraud Maskarinec
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Direct measurement of sound velocity in various specimens of breast tissue.

Authors:  W Weiwad; A Heinig; L Goetz; H Hartmann; D Lampe; J Buchmann; R Millner; R P Spielmann; S H Heywang-Koebrunner
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  Breast density measurements with ultrasound tomography: a comparison with film and digital mammography.

Authors:  Neb Duric; Norman Boyd; Peter Littrup; Mark Sak; Lukasz Myc; Cuiping Li; Erik West; Sal Minkin; Lisa Martin; Martin Yaffe; Steven Schmidt; Muhammad Faiz; Jason Shen; Olga Melnichouk; Qing Li; Teri Albrecht
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Localized fibroglandular tissue as a predictor of future tumor location within the breast.

Authors:  Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; John H Hipwell; Carol Record; Louise S Wilkinson; Sue M Moss; David J Hawkes; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; S D Frankel; S H Ominsky; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-12-02       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Secular stability and reliability of measurements of the percentage of dense tissue on mammograms.

Authors:  Jacques Benichou; Celia Byrne; Laura A Capece; Leslie E Carroll; Kathy Hurt-Mullen; David Y Pee; Martine Salane; Catherine Schairer; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2003

9.  Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI.

Authors:  Jeff Wang; Ania Azziz; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Catherine Klifa; David Newitt; Silaja Yitta; Nola Hylton; Karla Kerlikowske; John A Shepherd
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  11 in total

1.  Using ultrasound tomography to identify the distributions of density throughout the breast.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2016-04

2.  Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?

Authors:  Sergio J Sanabria; Orcun Goksel; Katharina Martini; Serafino Forte; Thomas Frauenfelder; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Marga B Rominger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Ultrasound tomography imaging with waveform sound speed: Parenchymal changes in women undergoing tamoxifen therapy.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Mark Sherman; Gretchen Gierach
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03

4.  Speed of sound ultrasound: a pilot study on a novel technique to identify sarcopenia in seniors.

Authors:  Sergio J Sanabria; Katharina Martini; Gregor Freystätter; Lisa Ruby; Orcun Goksel; Thomas Frauenfelder; Marga B Rominger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Using Speed of Sound Imaging to Characterize Breast Density.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup; Lisa Bey-Knight; Haythem Ali; Patricia Vallieres; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Whole Breast Sound Speed Measurement from US Tomography Correlates Strongly with Volumetric Breast Density from Mammography.

Authors:  Mark Sak; Peter Littrup; Rachel Brem; Neb Duric
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2020-07-17

7.  Automatic Segmentation of Ultrasound Tomography Image.

Authors:  Shibin Wu; Shaode Yu; Ling Zhuang; Xinhua Wei; Mark Sak; Neb Duric; Jiani Hu; Yaoqin Xie
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-09-10       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Efficient Segmentation of a Breast in B-Mode Ultrasound Tomography Using Three-Dimensional GrabCut (GC3D).

Authors:  Shaode Yu; Shibin Wu; Ling Zhuang; Xinhua Wei; Mark Sak; Duric Neb; Jiani Hu; Yaoqin Xie
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 3.576

9.  Ultrasound Tomography Evaluation of Breast Density: A Comparison With Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Elizabeth A M OʼFlynn; Jeremie Fromageau; Araminta E Ledger; Alessandro Messa; Ashley DʼAquino; Minouk J Schoemaker; Maria Schmidt; Neb Duric; Anthony J Swerdlow; Jeffrey C Bamber
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 6.016

10.  Using Whole Breast Ultrasound Tomography to Improve Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: A Novel Risk Factor Based on the Quantitative Tissue Property of Sound Speed.

Authors:  Neb Duric; Mark Sak; Shaoqi Fan; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Peter J Littrup; Michael S Simon; David H Gorski; Haythem Ali; Kristen S Purrington; Rachel F Brem; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.