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: 2421050859v1 242/1/63    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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cha, J. H. Articles by Im, J.-G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cha, J. H. Articles by Im, J.-G.

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

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 statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

Results: Regarding the descriptions of US findings, echogenicity ( = 0.205) was the most discordant between conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging, followed by margin ( = 0.495), lesion boundary ( = 0.495), calcifications ( = 0.537), posterior acoustic transmission ( = 0.546), echotexture ( = 0.586), shape ( = 0.591), and orientation ( = 0.594). The area under the ROC curve (A_z) 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 A_z 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