Static and dynamic cumulative maximum intensity display mode for subharmonic breast imaging: A comparative study with mammographic and conventional ultrasound techniques

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1177-1185

  Dave, Jaydev K ^a,c   Forsberg, Flemming ^a   Fernandes, Savitha ^a,c   Piccoli, Catherine W ^a,d   Fox, Traci B ^a,b   Merton, Daniel A ^a   Leodore, Lauren M ^a,c   Hall, Anne L ^e  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d South Jersey Radiology Associates   (United States)

^e GE HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast ultrasound; Cumulative maximum intensity; Dynamic imaging; Image processing; Motion compensation; Subharmonic imaging

Indexed keywords

BLOOD VESSELS; DISEASES; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MOTION COMPENSATION; ULTRASONIC APPLICATIONS; ULTRASONIC IMAGING;

BLOCK MATCHING ALGORITHMS; BREAST ULTRASOUND; DYNAMIC IMAGING; MAXIMUM INTENSITIES; MAXIMUM INTENSITY PROJECTION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSIS; SUBHARMONIC IMAGING; SUM ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

ALBUMINOID; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUOROCARBON; PERFLUTREN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALBUMINS; ALGORITHMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; FLUOROCARBONS; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 77955626529     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.8.1177     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. US Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999-2005 Incidence and Mortality Web-Based Report. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/uscs. Accessed December 22, 2009.
2. Jemal A, Diegel R, Ward E, Hoa Y, Xu J, Thun M. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59:225-249.
3. Coughlin SS, Ekwueme DU. Brest cancer as a global health concern. Cancer Epidemiol 2009; 33:315-318.
4. Schopper D, Wolf C. How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:1916-1923.
5. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: Contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999; 213:413-422.
6. Kopans DB. Breast Imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.
7. Timothy WJ, Byrne C, Colditz G, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:430-436.
8. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:716-726.
9. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:738-747.
10. Ferrara KW, Meritt CR, Burns PN, Foster FS, Mattrey RF, Wickline SA. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with US: Imaging, Doppler and contrast agents. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:824-839.
11. Frinking PJ, Bouakaz A, Kirkhorn J, Cate FJ, de Jong N. Ultrasound contrast imaging: Current and new potential methods. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:965-975.
12. Goldberg BB, Raichlen JS, Forsberg F. Ultrasound Contrast Agents: Basic Principles and Clinical Applications. 2nd ed. London, England: Martin Dunitz Ltd; 2001.
13. von Herbay A, Westendorff J, Gregor M. Contrastenhanced ultrasound with SonoVue: Differentiation between benign and malignant focal liver lesions in 317 Patients. J Clin Ultrasound 2010; 38:1-9.
14. Iezzi R, Basilico R, Giancristofaro D, Pascali D, Cotroneo AR, Storto ML. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus color duplex ultrasound imaging in the follow-up of patients after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49:552-560.
15. Correas J, Bridal L, Lesavre A, Mejean A, Claudon M, Helenon O. Ultrasound contrast agents: Properties, principles of action, tolerance and artifacts. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:1316-1328.
16. Dave JK, Forsberg F. Novel automated motion compensation technique for producing cumulative maximum intensity subharmonic images. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35:1555-1563.
17. Shi WT, Forsberg F, Hall AL, et al. Subharmonic imaging with microbubble contrast agents: Initial results. Ultrason Imaging 1999; 29:79-94.
18. Forsberg F, Shi WT, Goldberg BB. Subharmonic imaging of contrast agents. Ultrasonics 2000; 38:93-98.
19. Forsberg F, Piccoli C, Merton D, Palazzo J, Hall A. Breast lesions: Imaging with contrast-enhanced subharmonic US-initial experience. Radiology 2007; 244:718-726.
20. Goertz DE, Frijlink ME, Tempel D, et al. Subharmonic contrast intravascular ultrasound for vasa vasorum imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33:1859-1872.
21. Goertz DE, Frijlink ME, de Jong N, van der Steen AF. Nonlinear intravascular ultrasound contrast imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006; 32:491-502.
22. Goertz DE, Cherin E, Needles A, et al. High frequency nonlinear B-scan imaging of microbubble contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2005; 52:65-79. (Pubitemid 40245476)
23. Chomas J, Dayton P, May D, Ferrara K. Nondestructive subharmonic imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2002; 49:883-892.
24. Shankar PM, Dala Krishna P, Newhouse VL. Advantages of subharmonic over second harmonic backscatter for contrast -to-tissue echo enhancement. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24:395-399.
25. Gasparini G, Harris AL. Clinical importance of the determination of tumor angiogenesis in breast carcinoma: Much more than a prognostic tool. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13:765-782.
26. Relf M, LeJeune S, Scott PA, et al. Expression of the angiogenic factors vascular endothelial cell growth factor, acidic and basic fibroblast growth factor, tumor growth factor beta-1, platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor, placenta growth factor, and pleiotrophin in human primary breast cancer and its relation to angiogenesis. Cancer Res 1997; 57:963-969.
27. Forsberg F, Soparawala R, Merton D, Piccoli C, Palazzo J, Hall A. Quantitative analysis of contrast enhanced subharmonic breast images. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp 2006; 1584-1587.
28. Dave JK, Forsberg F, Merton D, et al. Image processing algorithms for cumulative maximum intensity subharmonic ultrasound imaging: A comparative study in the breast. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp 2008; 1655-1658.
29. Weerahandi S. Mixed models in repeated measures. In: Generalized Inference in Repeated Measures: Exact Methods in MANOVA and Mixed Models. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2004:197-240.
30. Kamiyama N. Update of ultrasound contrast imaging. Int Congr Ser 2004; 1274:53-56.
31. Averkiou M, Powers J, Skyba D, Matthew B, Seth J. Ultrasound contrast imaging research. Ultrasound Q 2003; 19:27-37.
32. Du J, Li FH, Fang H, Xia JG, Zhu CX. Microvascular architecture of breast lesions: Evaluation with contrastenhanced ultrasonographic micro flow imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:833-842.
33. Liu H, Jiang YX, Liu JB, Zhu QL, Sun Q, Chang XY. Contrast-enhanced breast ultrasonography: Imaging features with histopathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28:911-920.
34. Yang H, Liu GJ, Lu MD, Xu HX, Xie XY. Evaluation of the vascular architecture of hepatocellular carcinoma by micro flow imaging: Pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26:461-467.
35. Hattori M, Inui K, Yoshino J, et al. Usefulness of contrast enhanced ultrasonography using a new contrast agent in differential diagnosis of gallbladder polypoid lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35(suppl 1):S131-S131.