| Literature DB >> 35457801 |
Juan Carlos Gómez-Cortés1, José Javier Díaz-Carmona1, José Alfredo Padilla-Medina1, Alejandro Espinosa Calderon1, Alejandro Israel Barranco Gutiérrez1, Marcos Gutiérrez-López1, Juan Prado-Olivarez1.
Abstract
Impedance measuring acquisition systems focused on breast tumor detection, as well as image processing techniques for 3D imaging, are reviewed in this paper in order to define potential opportunity areas for future research. The description of reported works using electrical impedance tomography (EIT)-based techniques and methodologies for 3D bioimpedance imaging of breast tissues with tumors is presented. The review is based on searching and analyzing related works reported in the most important research databases and is structured according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) parameters and statements. Nineteen papers reporting breast tumor detection and location using EIT were systematically selected and analyzed in this review. Clinical trials in the experimental stage did not produce results in most of analyzed proposals (about 80%), wherein statistical criteria comparison was not possible, such as specificity, sensitivity and predictive values. A 3D representation of bioimpedance is a potential tool for medical applications in malignant breast tumors detection being capable to estimate an ap-proximate the tumor volume and geometric location, in contrast with a tumor area computing capacity, but not the tumor extension depth, in a 2D representation.Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer; breast tumor; cancer detection; geometric localization; impedance tomography
Year: 2022 PMID: 35457801 PMCID: PMC9025021 DOI: 10.3390/mi13040496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 3.523
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart for review paper selection.
Main electrical characteristics of EIT-based systems included in the review.
| Author (Year) | Electrode Arrangement | Working Frequency | Electric Current Injection | Medical Standard Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choridah et al. (2021) [ | 16 and 32 electrodes | - | - | - |
| Gomes et al. (2020) [ | 16 electrodes in a ring a | - | - | - |
| Hu Jing et al. (2020) [ | 16 electrodes in a ring | 50 Hz to 250 kHz | 1–7 mA | SwissTom Pioneer |
| Lee Jaehyuk et al. (2020) [ | 16 electrodes distributed | 10 kHz to 10 MHz | 0.1 to 3 mA pp | - |
| Mansouri et al. (2020) [ | 4 electrodes in a ring | 1 kHz | 0.9 mA | Study approved by Research Ethics Committee in Health and Science Disciplines |
| Murillo-Ortiz et al. (2020) [ | 2 electrodes | 50 kHz | 0.5 mA | MEIK v.5.6 commercial |
| Chen et al. (2020) [ | 16 electrodes in a ring | - | - | - |
| Gutierrez et al. (2019) [ | 8 electrodes in a ring | 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 5 kHz | 60 μA pp | IEC/TS 60479-1 |
| Rao et al. (2019) [ | 16 electrodes in a ring | 100 Hz to 10 MHz | 1.2 mA pp | - |
| Mothi et al. (2018) [ | 16 electrodes in a ring | 260 kHz | 7 mA | SwissTom commercial system |
| Wu et al. (2018) [ | 16 microelectrodes in | 10 kHz | - | - |
| Zarafshani et al. (2018) [ | 85 electrodes in a | 10 kHz to 3 MHz | 10 mA | IEC 60601-1 |
| Singh et al. (2017) [ | 16 electrodes in a | 1kHz to 1 MHz | 0.5 mA pp | - |
| Yunjie Yang et al. (2016) [ | 16 microelectrodes in | 10 kHz | 1.5 mA pp | Class II, type BF |
| Murphy et al. (2016) [ | 16 electrodes in a | 10 kHz, 100 kHz, 1 MHz and 10 MHz | - | - |
| Hong Sunjoo et al. (2015) [ | 90 electrodes distributed | 100 Hz to 100 kHz | 10 to 400 μA pp | IEC 60601-1 |
| Khan Shadab et al. (2015) [ | 16 electrodes in a | 1 kHz to 100 kHz | 100 μA rms | IEC 60601 |
| Zhang et al. (2015) [ | 85 electrodes in a | 500 kHz | - | - |
| Halther et al. (2015) [ | 16 electrodes in a | 127 kHz | 1 V pp | Institutional Review Board-approved study at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (Lebanon, NH, USA). |
Imaging technique, proposal, and tumor size detected applying EIT.
| Author (Year) | Imaging | Proposal Validation | Tumor Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choridah et al. (2021) [ | Imaging using a single layer (2D) | E: Chicken phantom filled with an artificial solid tumor | - |
| Gomes et al. (2020) [ | Imaging using a single layer (2D) | S: Images generated in MATLAB | - |
| Hu Jing et al. (2020) [ | Imaging using a single layer (2D) | E: 3D printed samples and phantoms | From 5 mm. |
| Lee Jaehyuk et al. (2020) [ | Imaging using a single layer (2D) | E: Agar phantom using carrots as tumors | From 5 mm. |
| Mansouri et al. (2020) [ | Impedance measurements between left and right breast | CT: 40 women. | - |
| Murillo-Ortiz et al. (2020) [ | Single layer imaging (2D), tumor classification | CT: 1200 women | - |
| Chen et al. (2020) [ | Single layer imaging(2D) and image processing | E: Phantom in micro scale | - |
| Gutierrez et al. (2019) [ | Normalized | E: Agar breast phantom model | From 10 mm. |
| Rao et al. (2019) [ | Single layer imaging (2D) | E: Saline tank setup | From 13 mm. |
| Mothi et al. (2018) [ | Single layer imaging on EIDORS | E: Gelatine breast phantom model | From 10 mm. |
| Wu et al. (2018) [ | Single layer imaging (2D) | E: Miniature EIT sensor using solution | From 1.2 mm. |
| Zarafshani et al. (2018) [ | Single layer imaging (2D) | E: E-phantom realistic model | - |
| Singh et al. (2017) [ | Single layer imaging on EIDORS software (2D) | E: Plastic tank phantom and background solution | - |
| Yunjie Yang et al. (2016) [ | Multiple layers imaging (3D) | E: Miniature phantom | From 0.55 mm. |
| Murphy et al. (2016) [ | Imaging of electrical conductivity cross-section (2D) | E: Tank filled with saline solution | From 10 mm. |
| Hong Sunjoo et al. (2015) [ | 3D reconstruction on a mobile device (3D) | E: Agar breast phantom model | From 5 mm. |
| Khan Shadab et al. (2015) [ | Single layer imaging (2D) | E: Tank filled with saline solution | From 25 mm. |
| Zhang et al. (2015) [ | Multiple layers imaging (3D) | S: Digital breast phantom | From 15 mm. |
| Halther et al. (2015) [ | Single layer imaging (2D) | CT: 19 women | From 20 mm. |
Sensitivity and specificity percentage for reviewed papers using clinical trials.
| Author (Year) | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| Mansouri et al. (2020) [ | - | - |
| Murillo-Ortiz et al. (2020) [ | 85% | 96% |
| Halther et al. (2015) [ | 77% | 81% |