Literature DB >> 31031035

A Quantitative Ultrasound-Based Multi-Parameter Classifier for Breast Masses.

Haidy G Nasief1, Ivan M Rosado-Mendez2, James A Zagzebski1, Timothy J Hall3.   

Abstract

This manuscript reports preliminary results obtained by combining estimates of two or three (among seven) quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters in a model-free, multi-parameter classifier to differentiate breast carcinomas from fibroadenomas (the most common benign solid tumor). Forty-three patients scheduled for core biopsy of a suspicious breast mass were recruited. Radiofrequency echo signal data were acquired using clinical breast ultrasound systems equipped with linear array transducers. The reference phantom method was used to obtain system-independent estimates of the specific attenuation (ATT), the average backscatter coefficients, the effective scatterer diameter (ESD) and an effective scatterer diameter heterogeneity index (ESDHI) over regions of interest within each mass. In addition, the envelope amplitude signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the Nakagami shape parameter, m, and the maximum collapsed average (maxCA) of the generalized spectrum were also computed. Classification was performed using the minimum Mahalanobis distance to the centroids of the training classes and tested against biopsy results. Classification performance was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The best performance with a two-parameter classifier used the ESD and ESDHI and resulted in an area under the ROC curve of 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.00). Classification performance improved with three parameters (ATT, ESD and ESDHI) yielding an area under the ROC curve of 0.999 (0.995-1.000). These results suggest that system-independent QUS parameters, when combined in a model-free classifier, are a promising tool to characterize breast tumors. A larger study is needed to further test this idea.
Copyright © 2019 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attenuation; Backscatter coefficient; Effective scatterer diameter; Heterogeneity index; Mahalanobis classier; Quantitative ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31031035      PMCID: PMC7230148          DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.02.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol        ISSN: 0301-5629            Impact factor:   2.998


  38 in total

1.  Duct detection and wall spacing estimation in breast tissue.

Authors:  L Huang; K D Donohue; V Genis; F Forsberg
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.578

2.  Stability of heterogeneous elastography phantoms made from oil dispersions in aqueous gels.

Authors:  Ernest L Madsen; Maritza A Hobson; Hairong Shi; Tomy Varghese; Gary R Frank
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Ultrasound tissue characterization of breast biopsy specimens: expanded study.

Authors:  C L Mortensen; P D Edmonds; Y Gorfu; J R Hill; J F Jensen; P Schattner; L A Shifrin; A D Valdes; S S Jeffrey; L J Esserman
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 1.578

4.  Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Frequency dependence of ultrasound attenuation and backscatter in breast tissue.

Authors:  F T D'Astous; F S Foster
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Pattern recognition methods for optimizing multivariate tissue signatures in diagnostic ultrasound.

Authors:  M F Insana; R F Wagner; B S Garra; R Momenan; T H Shawker
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 1.578

7.  Simultaneous backscatter and attenuation estimation using a least squares method with constraints.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2011-10-02       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Non-invasive evaluation of breast cancer response to chemotherapy using quantitative ultrasonic backscatter parameters.

Authors:  Lakshmanan Sannachi; Hadi Tadayyon; Ali Sadeghi-Naini; William Tran; Sonal Gandhi; Frances Wright; Michael Oelze; Gregory Czarnota
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 8.545

9.  Interlaboratory comparison of backscatter coefficient estimates for tissue-mimicking phantoms.

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

10.  Quantitative ultrasound imaging: in vivo results in normal liver.

Authors:  J A Zagzebski; Z F Lu; L X Yao
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 1.578

View more
  7 in total

1.  Effects of acoustic nonlinearity on pulse-echo attenuation coefficient estimation from tissue-mimicking phantoms.

Authors:  Andres Coila; Michael L Oelze
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Three-Dimensional H-Scan Ultrasound Imaging of Early Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in a Murine Model.

Authors:  Haowei Tai; Jane Song; Junjie Li; Shreya Reddy; Mawia Khairalseed; Kenneth Hoyt
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 10.065

3.  Analytic Global Regularized Backscatter Quantitative Ultrasound.

Authors:  Noushin Jafarpisheh; Timothy J Hall; Hassan Rivaz; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 2.725

4.  Combination of shear wave elastography and BI-RADS in identification of solid breast masses.

Authors:  Xue Zheng; Fei Li; Zhi-Dong Xuan; Yu Wang; Lei Zhang
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 1.930

Review 5.  Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Authors:  Hedvig Hricak; May Abdel-Wahab; Rifat Atun; Miriam Mikhail Lette; Diana Paez; James A Brink; Lluís Donoso-Bach; Guy Frija; Monika Hierath; Ola Holmberg; Pek-Lan Khong; Jason S Lewis; Geraldine McGinty; Wim J G Oyen; Lawrence N Shulman; Zachary J Ward; Andrew M Scott
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Classification of Benign and Malignant Breast Tumors Using H-Scan Ultrasound Imaging.

Authors:  Yali Ouyang; Po-Hsiang Tsui; Shuicai Wu; Weiwei Wu; Zhuhuang Zhou
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-08

7.  Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS)-Based Radiomic Nomogram: A Potential Tool for Reducing Unnecessary Biopsies of BI-RADS 4 Lesions.

Authors:  Shi-Jie Wang; Hua-Qing Liu; Tao Yang; Ming-Quan Huang; Bo-Wen Zheng; Tao Wu; Chen Qiu; Lan-Qing Han; Jie Ren
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-12
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.