OBJECTIVES: The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) atlas for ultrasound (US) qualitatively describes the echogenicity and attenuation of a mass, where fat lobules serve as a standard for comparison. This study aimed to estimate acoustic properties of breast fat under clinical imaging conditions to determine the degree to which properties vary among patients. METHODS: Twenty-four women with solid breast masses scheduled for biopsy were scanned with a Siemens S2000 scanner and 18L6 linear array transducer (Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA). Offline analysis estimated the attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficients (BSCs) from breast fat using the reference phantom method. The average BSC was calculated over 6 to 12 MHz to objectively quantify the BI-RADS US echo pattern descriptor, and effective scatterer diameters were also estimated. RESULTS: A power law fit to the attenuation coefficient versus frequency yielded an attenuation coefficient of 1.28 dB·cm(-1) MHz(-0.73). The mean attenuation coefficient versus frequency slope ± SD at 7 MHz was 0.73 ± 0.23 dB·cm(-1) MHz(-1), in agreement with previously reported values. The BSC versus frequency showed close agreement among all patients, both in magnitude and frequency dependence, with a power law fit of (0.6 ± 0.25) ×10(-4) sr(-1) cm(-1) MHz(-2.49). The average backscatter in the 6-12-MHz range was 0.004 ± 0.002 sr(-1) cm(-1). The mean effective scatterer diameter for fat was 60.2 ± 9.5 μm. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement in parameter estimates for breast fat among these patients supports the use of fat as a standard for comparison with tumors. Results also suggest that objective quantification of these BI-RADS US descriptors may reduce subjectivity when interpreting B-mode image data.
OBJECTIVES: The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) atlas for ultrasound (US) qualitatively describes the echogenicity and attenuation of a mass, where fat lobules serve as a standard for comparison. This study aimed to estimate acoustic properties of breast fat under clinical imaging conditions to determine the degree to which properties vary among patients. METHODS: Twenty-four women with solid breast masses scheduled for biopsy were scanned with a Siemens S2000 scanner and 18L6 linear array transducer (Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA). Offline analysis estimated the attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficients (BSCs) from breast fat using the reference phantom method. The average BSC was calculated over 6 to 12 MHz to objectively quantify the BI-RADS US echo pattern descriptor, and effective scatterer diameters were also estimated. RESULTS: A power law fit to the attenuation coefficient versus frequency yielded an attenuation coefficient of 1.28 dB·cm(-1) MHz(-0.73). The mean attenuation coefficient versus frequency slope ± SD at 7 MHz was 0.73 ± 0.23 dB·cm(-1) MHz(-1), in agreement with previously reported values. The BSC versus frequency showed close agreement among all patients, both in magnitude and frequency dependence, with a power law fit of (0.6 ± 0.25) ×10(-4) sr(-1) cm(-1) MHz(-2.49). The average backscatter in the 6-12-MHz range was 0.004 ± 0.002 sr(-1) cm(-1). The mean effective scatterer diameter for fat was 60.2 ± 9.5 μm. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement in parameter estimates for breast fat among these patients supports the use of fat as a standard for comparison with tumors. Results also suggest that objective quantification of these BI-RADS US descriptors may reduce subjectivity when interpreting B-mode image data.
Authors: R M Golub; R E Parsons; B Sigel; E J Feleppa; J Justin; H A Zaren; M Rorke; J Sokil-Melgar; H Kimitsuki Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Kibo Nam; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Alexander D Pawlicki; Viksit Kumar; Ernest L Madsen; Goutam Ghoshal; Roberto J Lavarello; Michael L Oelze; Timothy A Bigelow; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall Journal: Ultrason Imaging Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 1.578
Authors: Janelle J Anderson; Maria-Teresa Herd; Michael R King; Alexander Haak; Zachary T Hafez; Jun Song; Michael L Oelze; Ernest L Madsen; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall Journal: Ultrason Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 1.578
Authors: Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Kibo Nam; Yassin Labyed; Goutam Ghoshal; Alexander Haak; Ellora Sen-Gupta; Zhi He; Nathaniel R Hirtz; Rita J Miller; Sandhya Sarwate; Douglas G Simpson; James A Zagzebski; Timothy A Bigelow; Michael Oelze; Timothy J Hall; William D O'Brien Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Zara Vajihi; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Timothy J Hall; Hassan Rivaz Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Anne Rix; Marion Piepenbrock; Barbara Flege; Saskia von Stillfried; Patrick Koczera; Tatjana Opacic; Nina Simons; Peter Boor; Sven Thoröe-Boveleth; Roel Deckers; Jan-Niklas May; Twan Lammers; Georg Schmitz; Elmar Stickeler; Fabian Kiessling Journal: Theranostics Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 11.556