Diagnostic value of three dimensional breast ultrasound coronal imaging features

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2016.03.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the diagnostic value of coronal imaging of three dimensional breast ultrasound.

Methods

1 100 women patients from June 2010 to December 2012 admitted into our hospital were included in the study. Based on the fifth edition of BI-RADS ultrasound lexicon and related literature, features of imaging in both transverse and coronal planes were selected and their statistical significance was assessed. Diagnostic models were established using Logistic regression analysis as one consisted only of features on the transverse plane and the other on both planes.

Results

AUC of the diagnostic model with transverse imaging features was 0.862 (95%CI: 0.838-0.886) and was improved to 0.910 (95%CI: 0.892-0.928) after addition of coronal features. The difference between the two AUCs analyzed using Z test and the P value was less than 0.001.

Conclusion

Characteristics in the coronal plane help to improve diagnostic efficiency with providing additional information for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.

Key words: Breast neoplasms, Ultrasonography, Model, structural

Yiwei Chen, Ling Huo, Yingjian He, Xing Wang, Tao Ouyang. Diagnostic value of three dimensional breast ultrasound coronal imaging features[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2016, 10(03): 195-199.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhptwkxwx.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2016.03.008

https://zhptwkxwx.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2016/V10/I03/195

Figures/Tables 7

References 19

1	Crystal P,Strano SD,Shcharynski S, et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2003, 181(1): 177-182.
2	Berg WA,Blume JD,Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer: results of the first-year screen in ACRIN 6666[J]. JAMA, 2008, 299(18): 2151-2163.
3	Skaane P,Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the dif-ferentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1998, 170(1): 109-114.
4	Li N,Jiang YX,Zhu QL, et al. Accuracy of an automated breast volume ultrasound system for assessment of the pre-operative ex-tent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: comparison with a conven-tional handheld ultrasound examination[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2013, 39(12): 2255-2263.
5	Clauser P,Londero V,Como G, et al. Comparison between differ-ent imaging techniques in the evaluation of malignant breast le-sions: can 3D ultrasound be useful?[J]. Radiol Med, 2014, 119(4): 240-248.
6	Watermann DO,FÖLDI M,Hanjalic-Beck A, et al. Three-dimen-sional ultrasound for the assessment of breast lesions[J]. Ultra-sound Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 25(6): 592-598.
7	Kim H,Cha JH,Oh HY, et al. Comparison of conventional and au-tomated breast volume ultrasound in the description and character-ization of solid breast masses based on BI-RADS features[J]. Breast Cancer, 2014, 21(4): 423-428.
8	Mendelson EB,Böhm-Vélez M,Berg WA, et al. ACR BI-RADS^® Ultrasound. In: ACR BI-RADS^® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System[M/CD]. Reston, VA, American College of Radiol-ogy, 2013.
9	Chon N,Moon WK,Cha JH, et al. Differentiating benign from ma-lignant solid breast masses: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US[J]. Radiology, 2006, 240(1): 26-32.
10	Costantini M,Belli P,Lombardi R, et al. Characterization of solid breast masses:use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2006, 25(5): 649-659.
11	Wang HY,Jiang YX,Zhu QL, et al. Automated breast volume scanning: identifying 3-d coronal plane imaging features may help categorize complex cysts[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2016, 42(3): 689-698.
12	Chen L,Chen Y,Diao XH, et al. Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differ-entiation of benign and malignant breast masses[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2013, 39(10): 1735-1742.
13	苏昆仑,徐海滨,张正贤,等.自动乳腺全容积扫查系统对乳腺高危小病灶的诊断价值[J].中华肿瘤外科杂志, 2013, 35(9): 703-707.
14	Lin X,Wang J,Han F, et al. Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and compar-ison with handheld ultrasound[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012, 81(5): 873-878.
15	Rotten D,Levaillant JM,Zerat L. Analysis of normal breast tissue and of solid breast masses using three-dimensional ultrasound mammography[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 14(2): 114-124.
16	Zhang J,Lai XJ,Zhu QL, et al. Interobserver agreement for sono-grams of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012, 81(9): 2179-2183.
17	Van Zelst JC,Platel B,Karssemeijer N, et al. Multiplanar recon-structions of 3D automated breast ultrasound improve lesion differ-entiation by radiologists[J]. Acad Radiol, 2015, 22(12): 1489-1496.
18	Kim YW,Kim SK,Youn HJ, et al. The clinical utility of automated breast volume scanner: a pilot study of 139 cases[J]. J Breast Can-cer, 2013, 16(3): 329-334.
19	Skaane P,Gullien R,Eben EB, et al. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammog-raphy: a reader performance study[J]. Acta Radiol, 2015, 56(4): 404-412.

?	影像特征		记录赋值
横断面	回声类型		?
?	?	低回声	1
?	?	无回声/等回声/高回声/混合回声	2
?	形状		?
?	?	圆形/椭圆形	1
?	?	不规则	2
?	方向		?
?	?	平行	1
?	?	不平行	2
?	边界		?
?	?	清晰	1
?	?	不清晰	2
?	病灶内钙化		?
?	?	有	1
?	?	无	2
?	后方回声		?
?	?	无改变	1
?	?	增强	2
?	?	衰减	3
?	?	混合	4
冠状面	汇聚征		?
?	?	有	1
?	?	无	2
?	冠状位边界		?
?	?	清晰	1
?	?	不清晰	2

?	影像特征		记录赋值
横断面	回声类型		?
?	?	低回声	1
?	?	无回声/等回声/高回声/混合回声	2
?	形状		?
?	?	圆形/椭圆形	1
?	?	不规则	2
?	方向		?
?	?	平行	1
?	?	不平行	2
?	边界		?
?	?	清晰	1
?	?	不清晰	2
?	病灶内钙化		?
?	?	有	1
?	?	无	2
?	后方回声		?
?	?	无改变	1
?	?	增强	2
?	?	衰减	3
?	?	混合	4
冠状面	汇聚征		?
?	?	有	1
?	?	无	2
?	冠状位边界		?
?	?	清晰	1
?	?	不清晰	2

影像特征		乳腺例数	良性(389例)	恶性(711例)	χ²值	P值	OR值(95%CI)
肿物回声		?	?	?	48.4	<0.001	0.3(0.16～0.38)
?	低	990	317(81.5)	673(94.7)	?	?	?
?	无/等/高/混合	110	72(18.5)	38(5.3)	?	?	?
形状		?	?	?	350.0	<0.001	23.1(15.5～34.4)
?	圆形/椭圆形	243	209(53.7)	34(3.8)	?	?	?
?	不规则	857	180(46.3)	677(95.2)	?	?	?
方向		?	?	?	79.5	<0.001	6.8(4.2～10.8)
?	平行	881	368(94.6)	513(72.2)	?	?	?
?	不平行	219	21(5.4)	198(27.8)	?	?	?
边界		?	?	?	386.0	<0.001	48.6(28.0～84.1)
?	清晰	214	199(51.2)	15(2.1)	?	?	?
?	不清晰	886	190(48.8)	696(97.9)	?	?	?
肿物内钙化		?	?	?	74.6	<0.001	0.2(0.1～0.3)
?	有	250	31(8.0)	219(30.8)	?	?	?
?	无	850	358(92.0)	492(69.2)	?	?	?
后方回声		?	?	?	14.5	0.002	-
?	无改变	696	250(64.3)	446(62.7)	?	?	?
?	增强	132	60(15.4)	72(10.1)	?	?	?
?	衰减	266	75(19.3)	191(26.9)	?	?	?
?	混合	6	4(1.0)	2(0.3)	?	?	?
冠状面汇聚征		?	?	?	138.1	<0.001	0.02(0.01～0.06)
?	有	221	3(0.8)	218(30.7)	?	?	?
?	无	879	386(99.2)	493(69.3)	?	?	?
冠状面边界		?	?	?	321.4	<0.001	45.2(24.7～82.8)
?	清晰	182	170(43.7)	12(1.7)	?	?	?
?	不清晰	918	219(56.3)	699(98.3)	?	?	?

影像特征		乳腺例数	良性(389例)	恶性(711例)	χ²值	P值	OR值(95%CI)
肿物回声		?	?	?	48.4	<0.001	0.3(0.16～0.38)
?	低	990	317(81.5)	673(94.7)	?	?	?
?	无/等/高/混合	110	72(18.5)	38(5.3)	?	?	?
形状		?	?	?	350.0	<0.001	23.1(15.5～34.4)
?	圆形/椭圆形	243	209(53.7)	34(3.8)	?	?	?
?	不规则	857	180(46.3)	677(95.2)	?	?	?
方向		?	?	?	79.5	<0.001	6.8(4.2～10.8)
?	平行	881	368(94.6)	513(72.2)	?	?	?
?	不平行	219	21(5.4)	198(27.8)	?	?	?
边界		?	?	?	386.0	<0.001	48.6(28.0～84.1)
?	清晰	214	199(51.2)	15(2.1)	?	?	?
?	不清晰	886	190(48.8)	696(97.9)	?	?	?
肿物内钙化		?	?	?	74.6	<0.001	0.2(0.1～0.3)
?	有	250	31(8.0)	219(30.8)	?	?	?
?	无	850	358(92.0)	492(69.2)	?	?	?
后方回声		?	?	?	14.5	0.002	-
?	无改变	696	250(64.3)	446(62.7)	?	?	?
?	增强	132	60(15.4)	72(10.1)	?	?	?
?	衰减	266	75(19.3)	191(26.9)	?	?	?
?	混合	6	4(1.0)	2(0.3)	?	?	?
冠状面汇聚征		?	?	?	138.1	<0.001	0.02(0.01～0.06)
?	有	221	3(0.8)	218(30.7)	?	?	?
?	无	879	386(99.2)	493(69.3)	?	?	?
冠状面边界		?	?	?	321.4	<0.001	45.2(24.7～82.8)
?	清晰	182	170(43.7)	12(1.7)	?	?	?
?	不清晰	918	219(56.3)	699(98.3)	?	?	?

因素	诊断模型A^a	诊断模型B^b
AUC(95%CI)	0.910(0.892～0.928)	0.862(0.838～0.886)
诊断界值(cut-off值)	0.641	0.557
敏感度	0.910(647/711)	0.861(612/711)
特异度	0.733(285/389)	0.722(281/389)
阳性预测值	0.862(647/751)	0.850(612/720)
阴性预测值	0.817(285/349)	0.739(281/380)
准确性	0.847(932/1100)	0.812(893/1 100)

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export