Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses

Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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). Conclusions: 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)26-31
Number of pages6
JournalRadiology
Volume240
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Jul 1

Fingerprint

Breast
Research Ethics Committees
Needle Biopsy
Informed Consent
Neoplasms
Sensitivity and Specificity
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Cho, Nariya ; Moon, Woo Kyung ; Cha, Joo Hee ; Kim, Sun Mi ; Han, Boo Kyung ; Kim, Eunkyung ; Kim, Mi Hye ; Chung, Soo Young ; Choi, Hye Young ; Im, Jung Gi. / Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses : Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US. In: Radiology. 2006 ; Vol. 240, No. 1. pp. 26-31.
@article{8174d125b4584c78a496c72e3ff946a2,
title = "Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US",
abstract = "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). Conclusions: 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.",
author = "Nariya Cho and Moon, {Woo Kyung} and Cha, {Joo Hee} and Kim, {Sun Mi} and Han, {Boo Kyung} and Eunkyung Kim and Kim, {Mi Hye} and Chung, {Soo Young} and Choi, {Hye Young} and Im, {Jung Gi}",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2401050743",
language = "English",
volume = "240",
pages = "26--31",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Cho, N, Moon, WK, Cha, JH, Kim, SM, Han, BK, Kim, E, Kim, MH, Chung, SY, Choi, HY & Im, JG 2006, 'Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US', Radiology, vol. 240, no. 1, pp. 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2401050743

Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses : Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US. / Cho, Nariya; Moon, Woo Kyung; Cha, Joo Hee; Kim, Sun Mi; Han, Boo Kyung; Kim, Eunkyung; Kim, Mi Hye; Chung, Soo Young; Choi, Hye Young; Im, Jung Gi.

In: Radiology, Vol. 240, No. 1, 01.07.2006, p. 26-31.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses

T2 - Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US

AU - Cho, Nariya

AU - Moon, Woo Kyung

AU - Cha, Joo Hee

AU - Kim, Sun Mi

AU - Han, Boo Kyung

AU - Kim, Eunkyung

AU - Kim, Mi Hye

AU - Chung, Soo Young

AU - Choi, Hye Young

AU - Im, Jung Gi

PY - 2006/7/1

Y1 - 2006/7/1

N2 - 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). Conclusions: 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.

AB - 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). Conclusions: 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745157498&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745157498&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2401050743

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2401050743

M3 - Article

VL - 240

SP - 26

EP - 31

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 1

ER -