A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses

Ran Cho Kyu, Bo Kyoung Seo, Juneyoung Lee, Etta D. Pisano, Bo-Kyung Je, Young Lee Ji, Jeong Choi Eun, Byung Chung Kyoo, Yu Whan Oh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare image quality and diagnostic accuracy of 2D with 3D ultrasonography in solid breast masses. Methods and material: To rate image quality, two radiologists compared lesion contrast and characterization of 507 solid breast masses in 2D and 3D ultrasonography and then graded the 3D imaging in 3-point scale. To characterize the masses, the same radiologists rated the examination for clarity of margin, posterior acoustic feature, and clustered microcalcifications within a mass. In addition, the masses were assigned BI-RADS® categories as proposed by the American College of Radiology, criteria using just ultrasonographic features. In the 202 pathologically confirmed cases, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer in 2D and 3D ultrasonography were assessed. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy were further evaluated according to the size of the masses. Results: Two observers rated 3D imaging superior to 2D imaging in terms of lesion contrast and characterization of the masses. Especially, superiority of 3D ultrasonography in terms of image quality was increasing in more than 10 mm sized masses. However, diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer of 3D imaging was not different from 2D imaging. Conclusion: In spite of superior image quality on 3D ultrasonography, it does not provide additional benefits to diagnostic accuracy for diagnosis of breast cancer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)365-370
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Radiology
Volume54
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005 Jun 1

Fingerprint

Ultrasonography
Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Calcinosis
Sensitivity and Specificity
Acoustics
Radiology
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Breast, diagnosis
  • Breast, US
  • Ultrasound (US)
  • Ultrasound (US), comparative studies
  • Ultrasound (US), Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses. / Kyu, Ran Cho; Seo, Bo Kyoung; Lee, Juneyoung; Pisano, Etta D.; Je, Bo-Kyung; Ji, Young Lee; Eun, Jeong Choi; Kyoo, Byung Chung; Oh, Yu Whan.

In: European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 54, No. 3, 01.06.2005, p. 365-370.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kyu, Ran Cho ; Seo, Bo Kyoung ; Lee, Juneyoung ; Pisano, Etta D. ; Je, Bo-Kyung ; Ji, Young Lee ; Eun, Jeong Choi ; Kyoo, Byung Chung ; Oh, Yu Whan. / A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses. In: European Journal of Radiology. 2005 ; Vol. 54, No. 3. pp. 365-370.
@article{00442a3db9b1431b8a4f653d66609403,
title = "A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses",
abstract = "Objective: To compare image quality and diagnostic accuracy of 2D with 3D ultrasonography in solid breast masses. Methods and material: To rate image quality, two radiologists compared lesion contrast and characterization of 507 solid breast masses in 2D and 3D ultrasonography and then graded the 3D imaging in 3-point scale. To characterize the masses, the same radiologists rated the examination for clarity of margin, posterior acoustic feature, and clustered microcalcifications within a mass. In addition, the masses were assigned BI-RADS{\circledR} categories as proposed by the American College of Radiology, criteria using just ultrasonographic features. In the 202 pathologically confirmed cases, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer in 2D and 3D ultrasonography were assessed. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy were further evaluated according to the size of the masses. Results: Two observers rated 3D imaging superior to 2D imaging in terms of lesion contrast and characterization of the masses. Especially, superiority of 3D ultrasonography in terms of image quality was increasing in more than 10 mm sized masses. However, diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer of 3D imaging was not different from 2D imaging. Conclusion: In spite of superior image quality on 3D ultrasonography, it does not provide additional benefits to diagnostic accuracy for diagnosis of breast cancer.",
keywords = "Breast, diagnosis, Breast, US, Ultrasound (US), Ultrasound (US), comparative studies, Ultrasound (US), Technology",
author = "Kyu, {Ran Cho} and Seo, {Bo Kyoung} and Juneyoung Lee and Pisano, {Etta D.} and Bo-Kyung Je and Ji, {Young Lee} and Eun, {Jeong Choi} and Kyoo, {Byung Chung} and Oh, {Yu Whan}",
year = "2005",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.006",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "365--370",
journal = "European Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0720-048X",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses

AU - Kyu, Ran Cho

AU - Seo, Bo Kyoung

AU - Lee, Juneyoung

AU - Pisano, Etta D.

AU - Je, Bo-Kyung

AU - Ji, Young Lee

AU - Eun, Jeong Choi

AU - Kyoo, Byung Chung

AU - Oh, Yu Whan

PY - 2005/6/1

Y1 - 2005/6/1

N2 - Objective: To compare image quality and diagnostic accuracy of 2D with 3D ultrasonography in solid breast masses. Methods and material: To rate image quality, two radiologists compared lesion contrast and characterization of 507 solid breast masses in 2D and 3D ultrasonography and then graded the 3D imaging in 3-point scale. To characterize the masses, the same radiologists rated the examination for clarity of margin, posterior acoustic feature, and clustered microcalcifications within a mass. In addition, the masses were assigned BI-RADS® categories as proposed by the American College of Radiology, criteria using just ultrasonographic features. In the 202 pathologically confirmed cases, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer in 2D and 3D ultrasonography were assessed. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy were further evaluated according to the size of the masses. Results: Two observers rated 3D imaging superior to 2D imaging in terms of lesion contrast and characterization of the masses. Especially, superiority of 3D ultrasonography in terms of image quality was increasing in more than 10 mm sized masses. However, diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer of 3D imaging was not different from 2D imaging. Conclusion: In spite of superior image quality on 3D ultrasonography, it does not provide additional benefits to diagnostic accuracy for diagnosis of breast cancer.

AB - Objective: To compare image quality and diagnostic accuracy of 2D with 3D ultrasonography in solid breast masses. Methods and material: To rate image quality, two radiologists compared lesion contrast and characterization of 507 solid breast masses in 2D and 3D ultrasonography and then graded the 3D imaging in 3-point scale. To characterize the masses, the same radiologists rated the examination for clarity of margin, posterior acoustic feature, and clustered microcalcifications within a mass. In addition, the masses were assigned BI-RADS® categories as proposed by the American College of Radiology, criteria using just ultrasonographic features. In the 202 pathologically confirmed cases, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer in 2D and 3D ultrasonography were assessed. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy were further evaluated according to the size of the masses. Results: Two observers rated 3D imaging superior to 2D imaging in terms of lesion contrast and characterization of the masses. Especially, superiority of 3D ultrasonography in terms of image quality was increasing in more than 10 mm sized masses. However, diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false negative rate for diagnosis of breast cancer of 3D imaging was not different from 2D imaging. Conclusion: In spite of superior image quality on 3D ultrasonography, it does not provide additional benefits to diagnostic accuracy for diagnosis of breast cancer.

KW - Breast, diagnosis

KW - Breast, US

KW - Ultrasound (US)

KW - Ultrasound (US), comparative studies

KW - Ultrasound (US), Technology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=19344374718&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=19344374718&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.006

DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 15899337

AN - SCOPUS:19344374718

VL - 54

SP - 365

EP - 370

JO - European Journal of Radiology

JF - European Journal of Radiology

SN - 0720-048X

IS - 3

ER -