Literature DB >> 29178816

A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.

Erin I Neuschler1, Reni Butler1, Catherine A Young1, Lora D Barke1, Margaret L Bertrand1, Marcela Böhm-Vélez1, Stamatia Destounis1, Pamela Donlan1, Stephen R Grobmyer1, Janine Katzen1, Kenneth A Kist1, Philip T Lavin1, Erini V Makariou1, Tchaiko M Parris1, Kathy J Schilling1, F Lee Tucker1, Basak E Dogan1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the diagnostic utility of an investigational optoacoustic imaging device that fuses laser optical imaging (OA) with grayscale ultrasonography (US) to grayscale US alone in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. Materials and Methods This prospective, 16-site study of 2105 women (study period: 12/21/2012 to 9/9/2015) compared Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories assigned by seven blinded independent readers to benign and malignant breast masses using OA/US versus US alone. BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 masses assessed at diagnostic US with biopsy-proven histologic findings and BI-RADS 3 masses stable at 12 months were eligible. Independent readers reviewed US images obtained with the OA/US device, assigned a probability of malignancy (POM) and BI-RADS category, and locked results. The same independent readers then reviewed OA/US images, scored OA features, and assigned OA/US POM and a BI-RADS category. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated for US and OA/US. Benign and malignant mass upgrade and downgrade rates, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were compared. Results Of 2105 consented subjects with 2191 masses, 100 subjects (103 masses) were analyzed separately as a training population and excluded. An additional 202 subjects (210 masses) were excluded due to technical failures or incomplete imaging, 72 subjects (78 masses) due to protocol deviations, and 41 subjects (43 masses) due to high-risk histologic results. Of 1690 subjects with 1757 masses (1079 [61.4%] benign and 678 [38.6%] malignant masses), OA/US downgraded 40.8% (3078/7535) of benign mass reads, with a specificity of 43.0% (3242/7538, 99% confidence interval [CI]: 40.4%, 45.7%) for OA/US versus 28.1% (2120/7543, 99% CI: 25.8%, 30.5%) for the internal US of the OA/US device. OA/US exceeded US in specificity by 14.9% (P < .0001; 99% CI: 12.9, 16.9%). Sensitivity for biopsied malignant masses was 96.0% (4553/4745, 99% CI: 94.5%, 97.0%) for OA/US and 98.6% (4680/4746, 99% CI: 97.8%, 99.1%) for US (P < .0001). The negative likelihood ratio of 0.094 for OA/US indicates a negative examination can reduce a maximum US-assigned pretest probability of 17.8% (low BI-RADS 4B) to a posttest probability of 2% (BI-RADS 3). Conclusion OA/US increases the specificity of breast mass assessment compared with the device internal grayscale US alone. Online supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2017.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29178816     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017172228

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  47 in total

Review 1.  Current and future trends in photoacoustic breast imaging.

Authors:  Srirang Manohar; Maura Dantuma
Journal:  Photoacoustics       Date:  2019-06-30

Review 2.  Development of Multispectral Optoacoustic Tomography as a Clinically Translatable Modality for Cancer Imaging.

Authors:  William M MacCuaig; Meredith A Jones; Oshaani Abeyakoon; Lacey R McNally
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-11-20

Review 3.  A review of optical breast imaging: Multi-modality systems for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Steven Poplack
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Towards clinical photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging: Probe improvement and real-time graphical user interface.

Authors:  Jeesu Kim; Eun-Yeong Park; Byullee Park; Wonseok Choi; Ki J Lee; Chulhong Kim
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2020-01-09

Review 5.  Photoacoustic image-guided interventions.

Authors:  Madhumithra S Karthikesh; Xinmai Yang
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2019-11-20

6.  Photoacoustic laser effects in live mouse blastocysts: pilot safety studies of DNA damage from photoacoustic imaging doses.

Authors:  Erin Newcomer; Guang Yang; Bei Sun; Hongbo Luo; Duanwen Shen; Samuel Achilefu; Valerie Ratts; Joan Riley; John Yeh; Quing Zhu
Journal:  F S Sci       Date:  2020-07-14

7.  Photoacoustic imaging of kidney fibrosis for assessing pretransplant organ quality.

Authors:  Eno Hysi; Xiaolin He; Muhannad N Fadhel; Tianzhou Zhang; Adriana Krizova; Michael Ordon; Monica Farcas; Kenneth T Pace; Victoria Mintsopoulos; Warren L Lee; Michael C Kolios; Darren A Yuen
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2020-05-21

8.  In vivo optoacoustic temperature imaging for image-guided cryotherapy of prostate cancer.

Authors:  E V Petrova; H P Brecht; M Motamedi; A A Oraevsky; S A Ermilov
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Semi-anthropomorphic photoacoustic breast phantom.

Authors:  Maura Dantuma; Rianne van Dommelen; Srirang Manohar
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 3.732

10.  Intraoperative Resection Guidance with Photoacoustic and Fluorescence Molecular Imaging Using an Anti-B7-H3 Antibody-Indocyanine Green Dual Contrast Agent.

Authors:  Katheryne E Wilson; Sunitha V Bachawal; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.