Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US

Radiology

Volumn 240, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 26-31

  Cho, Nariya ^a   Moon, Woo Kyung ^a   Cha, Joo Hee ^b   Kim, Sun Mi ^c   Han, Boo Kyung ^d   Kim, Eun Kyung ^e   Kim, Mi Hye ^f   Chung, Soo Young ^g   Choi, Hye Young ^h   Im, Jung Gi ^a  

^a Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University Boramae Hospital   (South Korea)

^c Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^d Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^e Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^f Kim Mi Hye Breast Clinic   (South Korea)

^g Hallym University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^h Ewha Womans University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL ECHOGRAPHY; TWO DIMENSIONAL ECHOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND SCANNER;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 33745157498     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2401050743     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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.
2. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-468.
3. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889-894.
4. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1621-1625.
5. Downey DB, Fenster A, Williams JC. Clinical utility of three-dimensional US. RadioGraphics 2000;20:559-571.
6. Hamper UM, Trapanotto V, Sheth S, DeJong MR, Caskey CI. Three-dimensional US: preliminary clinical experience. Radiology 1994;191:397-401.
7. Johnson DD, Pretorias DH, Budorick NE, et al. Fetal lip and primary palate: three-dimensional versus two-dimensional US. Radiology 2000;217:236-239.
8. Hamper UM, Trapanotto V, DeJong MR, Sheth S, Caskey CI. Three-dimensional US of the prostate: early experience. Radiology 1999;212:719-723.
9. Downey DB, Fenster A. Vascular imaging with a three-dimensional power Doppler system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:665-668.
10. Rotten D, Levaillant JM, Zerat L. Analysis of normal breast tissue and of solid breast masses using three-dimensional ultrasound mammography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;14:114-124.
11. Meyberg-Solomayer GC, Kraemer B, Bergmann A. Does 3-D sonography bring any advantage to noninvasive breast diagnostics? Ultrasound Med Biol 2004;30:583-589.
12. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998.
13. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.
14. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989;24:234-245.
15. Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic image Research. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago. http://www-radiology .uchicago.edu/krl/ KRL_ROC/sortware_index .htm. Updated August 3, 2004. Accessed March 2, 2005.
16. Nelson TR, Pretorius DH, Lev-Toaff A, et al. Feasibility of performing a virtual patient examination using three-dimensional ultrasonographic data acquired at remote locations. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:941-952.
17. Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B. How sonographic tomography will change the face of obstetric sonography: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:371-378.
18. Moon WK, Myung JS, Lee YJ, Park IA, Noh DY, Im JG. US of ductal carcinoma in situ. RadioGraphics 2002;22:269-280.
19. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Roubidoux MA, et al. Computerized characterization of breast masses on three-dimensional ultrasound volumes. Med Phys 2004;31:744-754.
20. Chen DR, Chang RF, Chen WM, Moon WK. Computer-aided diagnosis for 3-dimensronal breast ultrasonography. Arch Surg 2003;138:296-302.
21. Weismann CF, Forstner R, Prokop E, Rettenbacher T. Three-dimensional targeting: a new three-dimensional ultrasound technique to evaluate needle position during breast biopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:359-364.
22. Fenster A, Surry KJ, Mills GR, Downey DH. 3D ultrasound guided breast biopsy system. Ultrasonics 2004;42:769-774.
23. Hochrnuth A, Boehm T, Bitzer C, Fleck M, Schneider A, Kaiser WA. Differentiation of breast masses using 3-D sonographic and echo-enhancer-based evaluation of the vascular pattern: initial experiences. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002;28:845-851.
24. Nelson TR, Pretorias DH, Hull A, Riccabona M, Sklansky MS, James G. Sources and impact of artifacts on clinical three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:374-383.
25. Hertzberg BS, Kliewer MA, Paulson EK, et al. PACS in sonography: accuracy of interpretation using film compared with monitor display-picture archiving and communication systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:1175-1179.
26. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS): ultrasound. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.