Lesion detection and characterization in a breast US Phantom: Results of the ACRIN 6666 investigators

Radiology

Volumn 239, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 693-702

  Berg, Wendie A ^a   Blume, Jeffrey D ^b   Cormack, Jean B ^b   Mendelson, Ellen B ^c   Madsen, Ernest L ^d  

^a Johns Hopkins Green Spring   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TUMOR VOLUME; UNITED STATES;

BREAST CYST; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 33744811412     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2393051069     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Paci E, Duffy SW, Giorgi D, et al. Quantification of the effect of mammographic screening on fatal breast cancers: The Florence Programme 1990-96. Br J Cancer 2002;87:65-69.
2. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:625-651.
3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38.
4. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammograpby, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175.
5. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-1087.
6. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, Nessaiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004;233:830-849.
7. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LN, Bers WA, et al. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS): mammography. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
8. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-630.
9. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325-336.
10. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-649.
11. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177-182.
12. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1675-1679.
13. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1225-1228.
14. Mendelson GB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E. Illustrated Breast imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS): ultrasound. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
15. Madsen EL, Berg WA, Mendelson EB, Frank GR. Anthropomorphic breast phantoms for qualification of investigators for ACRIN protocol 6666. Radiology 2006;239(3):869-874.
16. Madsen EL, Zagzebski JA, Frank GR. Oil-ingelatin dispersions for use as ultrasonically tissue-mimicking materials. Ultrasound Med Biol 1982;8:277-287.
17. Madsen EL, Kelly-Fry E, Frank GR. Anthropomorphic phantoms for assessing systems used in ultrasound imaging of the compressed breast. Ultrasound Med Biol 1988;14(suppl 1):183-201.
18. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.
19. Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow?-results from a national survey. Cancer 2005;104:491-498.
20. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-869.
21. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-367.
22. Berg WA, Blume J, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Effect of experience variables on interpretive performance in breast ultrasound: results from ACRIN protocol 6666 (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook., Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2004; 317.
23. Fajardo LL, Pisano ED, Caudry DJ, et al. Stereotactic and sonographic large-core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions; results of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V study. Acad Radiol 2004;11:293-308.
24. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Caudry DJ, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V. Radiology 2001;219:783-792.
25. Weber WN, Sickles EA, Callen PW, Filly RA. Nonpalpable breast lesion localization: limited efficacy of sonography. Radiology 1985;155:783-784.
26. Sickles EA, Filly RA, Callen PW. Breast cancer detection with sonography and mammography: comparison using state-of-the-art equipment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983;140:843-845.
27. Seo BK, Oh YW, Kim HR, et al. Sonographic evaluation of breast nodules: comparison of conventional, real-time compound, and pulse-inversion harmonic images. Korean J Radiol 2002;3:38-44.
28. Huber S, Wagner M, Medl M, Czembirek H. Real-time spatial compound imaging in breast ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002;28:155-163.
29. Szopinski KT, Pajk AM, Wysocki M, Amy D, Szopinska M, Jakubowski W. Tissue harmonic imaging: utility in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:479-487.
30. Merritt C, Piccoli C, Forsberg F. Wilkes A. Cavanaugh B, Lee S. Real-time spatial compound imaging of the breast: clinical evaluation of masses (abstr). Radiology 2000;217(P):491-492.
31. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123-134.
32. Berg WA. Breast ultrasonography: cystic lesions and probably benign findings. In: Berg WA, Javitt MC. eds. Women's imaging: strategies for clinical practice-categorical course syllabus. Leesburg, Va: American Roentgen Ray Society, 2004; 95-102.
33. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, et al. Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound. Br J Radiol 2003;76:328-331.
34. Linver MN, Paster SB, Rosenberg RD, Key CR, Stidley CA, King WV. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases. Radiology 1992;184:39-43.
35. Berg WA. D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002;224:871-880.