Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print May 9, 2006, 10.1148/radiol.2401050743
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2401050743v1
240/1/26    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cho, N.
Right arrow Articles by Im, J.-G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cho, N.
Right arrow Articles by Im, J.-G.
(Radiology 2006;240:26-32.)
© RSNA, 2006

Breast Imaging

Differentiating Benign from Malignant Solid Breast Masses: Comparison of Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional US1

Nariya Cho, MD, Woo Kyung Moon, MD, Joo Hee Cha, MD, Sun Mi Kim, MD, Boo-Kyung Han, MD, Eun-Kyung Kim, MD, Mi Hye Kim, MD, Soo Young Chung, MD, Hye-Young Choi, MD and Jung-Gi Im, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology and Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital and the Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 28 Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 100-744, Korea (N.C., W.K.M., J.-G.I.); Department of Radiology, Boramae Municipal Hospital, Seoul, Korea (J.H.C.); Department of Radiology, Bundang Seoul National University Hospital, Bundang, Korea (S.M.K.); Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (B.-K.H.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (E.-K.K.); Kim Mi Hye Breast Clinic, Seoul, Korea (M.H.K.); Department of Radiology, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (S.Y.C.); and Department of Diagnostic Radiology, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea (H.-Y.C.). From the 2004 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received May 1, 2005; revision requested June 30; revision received July 21; final version accepted August 25. Supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Korea. Address correspondence to W.K.M. (e-mail: moonwk{at}radcom.snu.ac.kr).

Purpose: To compare prospectively obtained static two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonographic (US) images in the diagnostic performance of radiologists with respect to the differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses with histopathologic examination as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: This study had institutional review board approval, and patient informed consent was obtained. Conventional 2D and 3D US images were obtained from 141 patients (age range, 25–71 years; mean age, 46 years) with 150 solid breast masses (60 cancers and 90 benign lesions) before excisonal or needle biopsy. Four radiologists who had not performed the examinations independently reviewed 2D US images and stored 3D US data and provided a level of suspicion concerning probability of malignancy. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values of 2D images were compared with those of 3D US images.

Results: For all readers, 3D US images were the same as or better than 2D US images in terms of sensitivity (100% vs 100% for reader 1; 100% vs 98% for reader 2; 98% vs 93% for reader 3; 93% vs 92% for reader 4), specificity (58% vs 56% for reader 1; 51% vs 46% for reader 2; 83% vs 72% for reader 3; 86% vs 84% for reader 4), and negative predictive values (100% vs 100% for reader 1; 100% vs 98% for reader 2; 99% vs 94% for reader 3; 95% vs 94% for reader 4). These differences, however, were not statistically significant (P > .05).

Conclusion: The performance of the radiologists with respect to the characterization of solid breast masses with static 2D US images was similar to that with 3D US data.

© RSNA, 2006




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. Luo, K. Numata, M. Morimoto, A. Nozaki, Y. Nagano, K. Sugimori, and K. Tanaka
Three-Dimensional Contrast-Enhanced Sonography of Vascular Patterns of Focal Liver Tumors: Pilot Study of Visualization Methods
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 165 - 173.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 radtechHome page
T. G. ODLE
Breast Ultrasound
Radiol. Technol., January 1, 2007; 78(3): 222M - 242M.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]