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


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Submit a response
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow reprints & permissions

© RSNA, 2007







Differentiating Benign from Malignant Solid Breast Masses with US Strain Imaging


Supplemental Tables

Table E1.  Comparison of Clinical Breast Strain Imaging Studies in the Literature

 

 

Study

No. of Subjects

No. of Observers

Blinded Observers

Breast US Experience

Offline

Image Formation

Condensed Results

Garra et al (5)

45

1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Lesion size ratio combined with  brightness in the strain image help discriminate benign from malignant solid lesions

Hall et al (6)

29

1

No

No

Yes

Small lesion size ratio appears to be  unique to benign lesions; some fibroadenomas change brightness as they are deformed 

Guiseppetti (23) *

82

2

Not known

Yes

No

Lesion brightness and brightness uniformity help discriminate benign from malignant solid lesions

Regner et al (18)

89

5

Yes

No

Yes

Lesion size ratio helps discriminate benign from malignant solid lesions (significant interobserver variability)

Ito et al (9)

111

1

No #

Yes

No

Lesion brightness and brightness uniformity helps discriminate benign from malignant solid lesions

Current

98

3

Yes

Yes

Yes

See text

 

* There were 91 lesions studied in 82 subjects, suggesting the lesions were not independent.

 

It is not clear whether all images were read by a single observer or, if two observers were involved, whether both read all images.

 

At least one of the observers had no formal training in breast US imaging.

 

#  Scoring in the first half of the study was performed with knowledge of the final diagnosis.

 


Table E2.  Numbers and Rates of Pathologic Diagnoses in All Collected Studies and in the Highest Quality Subset Included in Our Reader Study

 

 

Diagnosis

No. Collected (%)

No. Included (%)

Benign (total)

244 (60.5)

47 (48.0)

Fibroadenoma

132 (32.8)

25 (25.5)

Complex cyst

24 (6.0)

5 (5.1)

Normal tissue

19 (4.7)

2 (2.0)

Fibrocystic change

13 (3.2)

3 (3.1)

Stromal fibrosis

13 (3.2)

3 (3.1)

Fat necrosis/scar

8 (2.0)

2 (2.0)

Inflammation

8 (2.0)

2 (2.0)

Intraductal papilloma

6 (1.5)

1 (1.0)

Lymph node (benign)

6 (1.5)

1 (1.0)

Abscess

3 (0.7)

1 (1.0)

Lipoma

3 (0.7)

1 (1.0)

Duct ectasia

3 (0.7)

1 (1.0)

Ductal hyperplasia

1 (0.2)

0 (0.0)

Hematoma

1 (0.2)

0 (0.0)

Galactocele

1 (0.2)

0 (0.0)

Hamartoma

1 (0.2)

0 (0.0)

Tubular adenoma

1 (0.2)

0 (0.0)

Phylloides (benign)

1 (0.2)

0 (0.0)

High-risk lesions (total)

3 (0.7)

1 (1.0)

Atypical ductal hyperplasia

1 (0.2)

1 (1.0)

Lobular carcinoma in situ

2 (0.5)

0 (0.0)

Malignant (total)

156 (38.7)

50 (50)

Invasive ductal carcinoma

133 (33.0)

42 (42.9)

Invasive lobular carcinoma

12 (3.0)

3  (3.1)

Mixed*

4 (1.0)

2 (2.0)

Ductal carcinoma in situ

5 (1.2)

2 (2.0)

Phylloides (malignant)

2 (0.5)

1 (1.0)

 

 

 

Total lesions

403 (100.0)

98 (100.0)

 

* Mixed = Invasive carcinoma with ductal and lobular features.

 





This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Submit a response
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow reprints & permissions


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE