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


     

Published online before print November 7, 2006, 10.1148/radiol.2421050859
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2421050859v1
242/1/63    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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cha, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Im, J.-G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cha, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Im, J.-G.
(Radiology 2007;242:63-69.)
© RSNA, 2006

Breast Imaging

Characterization of Benign and Malignant Solid Breast Masses: Comparison of Conventional US and Tissue Harmonic Imaging1

Joo Hee Cha, MD, Woo Kyung Moon, MD, Nariya Cho, MD, Sun Mi Kim, MD, Seong Ho Park, MD, Boo-Kyung Han, MD, Yeon Hyeon Choe, MD, Jeong Mi Park, MD and Jung-Gi Im, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Boramae Municipal Hospital, Seoul, Korea (J.H.C.); 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 (W.K.M., N.C., S.M.K., J.G.I.); Department of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea (S.H.P.); Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (B.K.H., Y.H.C.); and Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa (J.M.P.). From the 2005 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received May 23, 2005; revision requested July 18; revision received October 11; accepted November 4; final version accepted April 12, 2006. Supported by KISTEP, Ministry of Science and Technology, Korea. Address correspondence to W.K.M. (e-mail: moonwk{at}radcom.snu.ac.kr).

Purpose: To prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of radiologists by using conventional ultrasonography (US) and tissue harmonic imaging for the differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses, with histologic results used as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Images were obtained with conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging in 88 patients (age range, 25–67 years; mean age, 45 years) with 91 solid breast masses (30 cancers and 61 benign lesions) before excisional or needle biopsy. Three experienced radiologists, who did not perform the examinations, independently analyzed the US findings and provided a level of suspicion to indicate the probability of malignancy. Results were evaluated by using {kappa} statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

Results: Regarding the descriptions of US findings, echogenicity ({kappa} = 0.205) was the most discordant between conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging, followed by margin ({kappa} = 0.495), lesion boundary ({kappa} = 0.495), calcifications ({kappa} = 0.537), posterior acoustic transmission ({kappa} = 0.546), echotexture ({kappa} = 0.586), shape ({kappa} = 0.591), and orientation ({kappa} = 0.594). The area under the ROC curve (Az) for conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging was 0.84 and 0.79, respectively, for reader 1; 0.88 and 0.85, respectively, for reader 2; and 0.91 and 0.89, respectively, for reader 3. The overall Az value for the three readers was 0.88 for conventional US and 0.84 for tissue harmonic imaging (95% confidence interval: –0.0950, 0.1646; P = .595).

Conclusion: The performance of the radiologists with respect to the characterization of solid breast masses as benign or malignant was not significantly improved with tissue harmonic imaging.

© RSNA, 2006