Browse

Characterization of benign and malignant solid breast masses: comparison of conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorCha, Joo Hee-
dc.contributor.authorMoon, Woo Kyung-
dc.contributor.authorCho, Nariya-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Sun Mi-
dc.contributor.authorPark, Seong Ho-
dc.contributor.authorHan, Boo-Kyung-
dc.contributor.authorChoe, Yeon Hyeon-
dc.contributor.authorPark, Jeong Mi-
dc.contributor.authorIm, Jung-Gi-
dc.date.accessioned2009-10-17-
dc.date.available2009-10-17-
dc.date.issued2007-
dc.identifier.citationRadiology 2007;242:63-69en
dc.identifier.issn0033-8419 (Print)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17090709-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/10472-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: To prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of radiologists by using conventional ultrasonography (US) and tissue harmonic imaging for the differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses, with histologic results used as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Images were obtained with conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging in 88 patients (age range, 25-67 years; mean age, 45 years) with 91 solid breast masses (30 cancers and 61 benign lesions) before excisional or needle biopsy. Three experienced radiologists, who did not perform the examinations, independently analyzed the US findings and provided a level of suspicion to indicate the probability of malignancy. Results were evaluated by using kappa statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Regarding the descriptions of US findings, echogenicity (kappa=0.205) was the most discordant between conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging, followed by margin (kappa=0.495), lesion boundary (kappa=0.495), calcifications (kappa=0.537), posterior acoustic transmission (kappa=0.546), echotexture (kappa=0.586), shape (kappa=0.591), and orientation (kappa=0.594). The area under the ROC curve (Az) for conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging was 0.84 and 0.79, respectively, for reader 1; 0.88 and 0.85, respectively, for reader 2; and 0.91 and 0.89, respectively, for reader 3. The overall Az value for the three readers was 0.88 for conventional US and 0.84 for tissue harmonic imaging (95% confidence interval: -0.0950, 0.1646; P=.595). CONCLUSION: The performance of the radiologists with respect to the characterization of solid breast masses as benign or malignant was not significantly improved with tissue harmonic imaging.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRadiological Society of North Americaen
dc.subjectAdulten
dc.subjectAgeden
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasms/*classification/*ultrasonographyen
dc.subjectFemaleen
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectImage Enhancement/*methodsen
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden
dc.subjectObserver Variationen
dc.subjectReproducibility of Resultsen
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificityen
dc.subjectUltrasonography, Mammary/methodsen
dc.titleCharacterization of benign and malignant solid breast masses: comparison of conventional US and tissue harmonic imagingen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor차주희-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor문우경-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor조나리야-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김선미-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor박성호-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor한부경-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor최연현-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor박정미-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor임정기-
dc.identifier.doi10.1148/radiol.2421050859-
Appears in Collections:
College of Medicine/School of Medicine (의과대학/대학원)Dept. of Radiation Applied Life Science (대학원 협동과정 방사선응용생명과학전공)Journal Papers (저널논문_방사선응용생명과학전공)
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
  • mendeley

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

Browse