HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2401050743v1 240/1/26    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cho, N. Articles by Im, J.-G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cho, N. Articles by Im, J.-G.

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

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:

				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]

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