Literature DB >> 29664342

Downgrading of Breast Masses Suspicious for Cancer by Using Optoacoustic Breast Imaging.

Gisela L G Menezes1, Ruud M Pijnappel1, Carla Meeuwis1, Robertus Bisschops1, Jeroen Veltman1, Philip T Lavin1, Marc J van de Vijver1, Ritse M Mann1.   

Abstract

Purpose To assess the ability of optoacoustic (OA) ultrasonography (US) to help correctly downgrade benign masses classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4a and 4b to BI-RADS 3 or 2. Materials and Methods OA/US technology uses laser light to detect relative amounts of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin in and around suspicious breast masses. In this prospective, multicenter study, results of 209 patients with 215 breast masses classified as BI-RADS 4a or 4b at US are reported. Patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2016. Masses were first evaluated with US with knowledge of previous clinical information and imaging results, and from this information a US imaging-based probability of malignancy (POM) and BI-RADS category were assigned to each mass. The same masses were then re-evaluated at OA/US. During the OA/US evaluation, radiologists scored five OA/US features, and then reassigned an OA/US-based POM and BI-RADS category for each mass. BI-RADS downgrade and upgrade percentages at OA/US were assessed by using a weighted sum of the five OA feature scores. Results At OA/US, 47.9% (57 of 119; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.57) of benign masses classified as BI-RADS 4a and 11.1% (three of 27; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.28) of masses classified as BI-RADS 4b were correctly downgraded to BI-RADS 3 or 2. Two of seven malignant masses classified as BI-RADS 4a at US were incorrectly downgraded, and one of 60 malignant masses classified as BI-RADS 4b at US was incorrectly downgraded for a total of 4.5% (three of 67; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.13) false-negative findings. Conclusion At OA/US, benign masses classified as BI-RADS 4a could be downgraded in BI-RADS category, which would potentially decrease biopsies negative for cancer and short-interval follow-up examinations, with the limitation that a few masses may be inappropriately downgraded. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29664342     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018170500

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


  34 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.  Optoacoustic imaging in endocrinology and metabolism.

Authors:  Angelos Karlas; Miguel A Pleitez; Juan Aguirre; Vasilis Ntziachristos
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 43.330

Review 4.  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

5.  The Clinical Utility of a Negative Result at Molecular Breast Imaging: Initial Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Ravi Jain; Deanna R Katz; Amber D Kapoor
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25

Review 6.  Frontiers of cancer imaging and guided therapy using ultrasound, light, and microwaves.

Authors:  Russell S Witte; Chandra Karunakaran; Andres N Zuniga; Hannah Schmitz; Hina Arif
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2018-08-04       Impact factor: 5.150

7.  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

8.  The diagnostic performance of ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis system for distinguishing breast masses: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Qi Wei; Yu-Jing Yan; Ge-Ge Wu; Xi-Rong Ye; Fan Jiang; Jie Liu; Gang Wang; Yi Wang; Juan Song; Zhi-Ping Pan; Jin-Hua Hu; Chao-Ying Jin; Xiang Wang; Christoph F Dietrich; Xin-Wu Cui
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  The emerging role of photoacoustic imaging in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Li Lin; Lihong V Wang
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  A new nomogram for predicting the malignant diagnosis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasonography category 4A lesions in women with dense breast tissue in the diagnostic setting.

Authors:  Yaping Yang; Yue Hu; Shiyu Shen; Xiaofang Jiang; Ran Gu; Hongli Wang; Fengtao Liu; Jingsi Mei; Jing Liang; Haixia Jia; Qiang Liu; Chang Gong
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.