SHERP

Differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses: conventional US versus spatial compound imaging

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 39 time in scopus
Authors
Cha, Joo Hee; Moon, Woo Kyung; Cho, Nariya; Chung, Sun Yang; Park, Seong Ho; Park, Jeong Mi; Han, Boo Kyung; Choe, Yeon Hyun; Cho, Gyunggoo; Im, Jung-Gi
Issue Date
2005-11-24
Publisher
Radiological Society of North America
Citation
Radiology 2005; 237:841–846.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare prospectively the diagnostic performance of radiologists who used conventional ultrasonography (US) with that of radiologists who used spatial compound imaging for the differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained. Before excisional or needle biopsy was performed, conventional US and spatial compound images were obtained in 67 patients (age range, 25-67 years; mean age, 45 years) with 75 solid breast masses (21 cancers and 54 benign lesions). Three experienced radiologists who did not perform the examinations independently analyzed US findings and indicated the probability of malignancy. Results were evaluated with kappa statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: For US findings, the presence of calcifications was the most discordant feature (kappa = 0.372) between conventional US and spatial compound imaging, followed by echotexture (kappa = 0.439), boundary echo (kappa = 0.496), orientation (kappa = 0.518), echogenicity (kappa = 0.523), shape (kappa = 0.526), margin (kappa = 0.569), and posterior acoustic transmission (kappa = 0.669). The area under the ROC curve for conventional US was 0.79 for reader 1, 0.88 for reader 2, and 0.82 for reader 3, and the area under the ROC curve for spatial compound imaging was 0.85 for reader 1, 0.88 for reader 2, and 0.89 for reader 3. The partial area index for conventional US was 0.29 for reader 1, 0.69 for reader 2, and 0.39 for reader 3, and the partial area index for spatial compound imaging was 0.29 for reader 1, 0.65 for reader 2, and 0.39 for reader 3. The difference between the diagnostic performances of the two techniques was not significant (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The performance of the radiologists with respect to the characterization of solid breast masses was not significantly improved with spatial compound imaging.
ISSN
0033-8419 (Print)
1527-1315 (Electronic)
Language
English
URI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16304106

http://hdl.handle.net/10371/10136
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373041480
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in Collections:
College of Medicine/School of Medicine (의과대학/대학원)Radiology (영상의학전공)Journal Papers (저널논문_영상의학전공)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse