Literature DB >> 7784555

Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions.

A T Stavros1, D Thickman, C L Rapp, M A Dennis, S H Parker, G A Sisney.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether sonography could help accurately distinguish benign solid breast nodules from indeterminate or malignant nodules and whether this distinction could be definite enough to obviate biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty sonographically solid breast nodules were prospectively classified as benign, indeterminate, or malignant. Benign nodules had no malignant characteristics and had either intense homogeneous hyperechogenicity or a thin echogenic pseudocapsule with an ellipsoid shape or fewer than four gentle lobulations. Sonographic classifications were compared with biopsy results. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of the classifications were calculated.
RESULTS: Benign histologic features were found in 625 (83%) lesions; malignant histologic features, in 125 (17%). Of benign lesions, 424 had been prospectively classified as benign. Two lesions classified as benign were found to be malignant at biopsy. Thus, the classification scheme had a negative predictive value of 99.5%. Of 125 malignant lesions, 123 were correctly classified as indeterminate or malignant (98.4% sensitivity).
CONCLUSION: Sonography can be used to accurately classify some solid lesions as benign, allowing imaging follow-up rather than biopsy.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7784555     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.196.1.7784555

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


  231 in total

Review 1.  Integration of breast imaging into cancer management.

Authors:  L J Esserman; D Wolverton; N Hylton
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 2.  PET/CT and breast cancer.

Authors:  Barbara Zangheri; Cristina Messa; Maria Picchio; Luigi Gianolli; Claudio Landoni; Ferruccio Fazio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-05-05       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  A comparison of logistic regression analysis and an artificial neural network using the BI-RADS lexicon for ultrasonography in conjunction with introbserver variability.

Authors:  Sun Mi Kim; Heon Han; Jeong Mi Park; Yoon Jung Choi; Hoi Soo Yoon; Jung Hee Sohn; Moon Hee Baek; Yoon Nam Kim; Young Moon Chae; Jeon Jong June; Jiwon Lee; Yong Hwan Jeon
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Breast ultrasound image classification based on multiple-instance learning.

Authors:  Jianrui Ding; H D Cheng; Jianhua Huang; Jiafeng Liu; Yingtao Zhang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Development of a training phantom for compression breast elastography-comparison of various elastography systems and numerical simulations.

Authors:  Kavitha Manickam; Machireddy Ramasubba Reddy; Suresh Seshadri; Bagyam Raghavan
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-12-17

7.  Diagnostic value of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification for benign and malignant breast lesions with different sizes.

Authors:  Hui Liu; Li-Xia Zhao; Guang Xu; Ming-Hua Yao; Ai-Hong Zhang; Hui-Xiong Xu; Rong Wu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

8.  Multimodality approach in the diagnosis and management of bilateral giant juvenile breast fibroadenoma.

Authors:  Noora Rafeek; Rajeswaran Rangasami; Kamakshi Dhanraj; Santhosh Joseph
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-10-06

Review 9.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions.

Authors:  C Walter; K Scheidhauer; A Scharl; U-J Goering; P Theissen; H Kugel; T Krahe; U Pietrzyk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.