Breast ultrasound tomography versus MRI for clinical display of anatomy and tumor rendering: Preliminary results

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 198, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 233-239

  Ranger, Bryan ^a   Littrup, Peter J ^a   Duric, Nebojsa ^a   Chandiwala Mody, Priti ^b   Li, Cuiping ^a   Schmidt, Steven ^a   Lupinacci, Jessica ^a  

^a KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast imaging; Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI; MRI; Ultrasound tomography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST FIBROADENOMA; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TOMOGRAPHY; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; TUMOR VOLUME; ULTRASOUND; ULTRASOUND TOMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84455203695     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6910     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007; 244:381-388 (Pubitemid 47080869)
2. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al.; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:75-89 (Pubitemid 46535708)
3. Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 112:461-474
4. Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R, Schneider A, Kaiser WA. High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:3-12 (Pubitemid 36236293)
5. Onesti JK, Mangus BE, Helmer SD, Osland JS. Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements. Am J Surg 2008; 196:844-850
6. Schnall MD. Application of magnetic resonance imaging to early detection of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2001; 3:17-21 (Pubitemid 32223648)
7. Warren RM, Pointon L, Thompson D, et al.; UK Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS) Study Group. Reading protocol for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis. Radiology 2005; 236:779-788 (Pubitemid 41170838)
8. Kuhl CK, Schild HH. Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12:965-974
9. Bartella L, Smith CS, Dershaw DD, Liberman L. Imaging breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:45-67 (Pubitemid 44854045)
10. Schnall MD. Breast MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2003; 41:43-50 (Pubitemid 36259125)
11. Chen W, Giger ML, Lan L, Bick U. Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancement-variance dynamics. Med Phys 2004; 31:1076-1082 (Pubitemid 38656778)
12. Chen W, Giger ML, Li H, Bick U, Newstead GM. Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. Magn Reson Med 2007; 58:562-571 (Pubitemid 350154967)
13. Wiener JI, Schilling KJ, Adami C, Obuchowski NA. Assessment of suspected breast cancer by MRI: a prospective clinical trial using a kinetic and morphologic analysis. AJR 2005; 184:878-886 (Pubitemid 43899516)
14. Moore SG, Shenoy PJ, Fanucchi L, Tumeh JW, Flowers CR. Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9:9
15. André MP, Janée HS, Martin PJ, Otto GP, Spivey BA, Palmer DA. High-speed data acquisition in a diffraction tomography system employing large-scale toroidal arrays. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 1997; 8:137-147 (Pubitemid 127549468)
16. Johnson SA, Tracy ML. Inverse scattering solutions by a sinc basis, multiple source, moment method. Part I. Theory. Ultrason Imaging 1983; 5:361-375 (Pubitemid 14151900)
17. Schreiman JS, Gisvold JJ, Greenleaf JF, Bahn RC. Ultrasound transmission computed tomography of the breast. Radiology 1984; 150:523-530 (Pubitemid 14224591)
18. Natterer FA and Wubbeling F. A propagation-backpropagation method for ultrasound tomography. Inverse Problems 1995; 11:1225-1232
19. Liu DL, Waag RC. Propagation and backpropagation for ultrasonic wavefront design. IEEE Trans Ultras Ferro and Freq Contr 1997; 44:1-13 (Pubitemid 127771183)
20. Ranger B, Littrup P, Duric N, et al. Breast imaging with acoustic tomography: a comparative study with MRI. (abstr) Proc SPIE 2009; 7265: 726,510
21. Duric N, Littrup P, Poulo L, et al. Detection of breast cancer with ultrasound tomography: first results with the computerized ultrasound risk evaluation (CURE) prototype. Med Phys 2007; 34:773-785 (Pubitemid 46185157)
22. Duric N, Littrup P, Babkin A, et al. Development of ultrasound tomography for breast imaging: technical assessment. Med Phys 2005; 32:1375-1386 (Pubitemid 40695781)
23. Li C, Duric N, Littrup P, Huang L. In vivo breast sound-speed imaging with ultrasound tomography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35:1615-1628
24. Glide-Hurst CK, Duric N, Littrup P. A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density. Med Phys 2007; 34:4491-4498 (Pubitemid 350029670)
25. Glide-Hurst CK, Duric N, Littrup P. Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images. Med Phys 2008; 35:3988-3997
26. Schmidt S, Duric N, Li C, Roy O, Huang Z. Modification of Kirchhoff migration with variable sound speed and attenuation for acoustic imaging of media and application to tomographic imaging of the breast. Med Phys 2011; 38:998-1007
27. Goss SA, Johnston RL, Dunn F. Comprehensive compilation of empirical ultrasonic properties of mammalian tissues. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 64:423-457 (Pubitemid 9001200)
28. Duck FA. Physical properties of tissue. London, UK: Academic Press, 1990
29. Edmonds PD, Mortensen CL, Hill JR, et al. Ultrasound tissue characterization of breast biopsy specimens. Ultrason Imaging 1991; 13:162-185
30. Weiwad W, Heinig A, Goetz L, et al. Direct measurement of sound velocity in various specimens of breast tissue. Invest Radiol 2000; 35:721-726 (Pubitemid 32039034)
31. Chang CH, Huang SW, Yang HC, Chou YH, Li PC. Reconstruction of ultrasonic sound velocity and attenuation coefficient using linear arrays: clinical assessment. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33:1681-1687 (Pubitemid 47633000)
32. ImageJ Website. http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/. Accessed August 2, 2009
33. D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson, EB, Ikeda DM, et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS - breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
34. Satake H, Nishio A, Ikeda M, et al. Predictive value for malignancy of suspicious breast masses of BI-RADS categories 4 and 5 using ultrasound elastography and MR diffusion-weighted imaging. AJR 2011; 196:202-209