Prospective assessment of adjunctive ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in women undergoing breast biopsy : Impact on BI-RADS assessments
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved..
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of adjunctive ultrasound guided diffuse optical tomography (US-guided DOT) on BI-RADS assessment in women undergoing US-guided breast biopsy.
METHOD: This prospective study enrolled women referred for US-guided breast biopsy between 3/5/2019 and 3/19/2020. Participants underwent US-guided DOT immediately before biopsy. The US-guided DOT acquisition generated average maximum total hemoglobin (HbT) spatial maps and quantitative HbT values. Four radiologists blinded to histopathology assessed conventional imaging (CI) to assign a CI BI-RADS assessment and then integrated DOT information in assigning a CI&DOT BI-RADS assessment. HbT was compared between benign and malignant lesions using an ANOVA test and Tukey's test. Benign biopsies were tabulated, deeming BI-RADS ≥ 4A as positive. Reader agreement was assessed.
RESULTS: Among 61 included women (mean age 48 years), biopsy demonstrated 15 (24.6%) malignant and 46 (75.4%) benign lesions. Mean HbT was 55.3 ± 22.6 µM in benign lesions versus 85.4 ± 15.6 µM in cancers (p < .001). HbT threshold of 78.5 µM achieved sensitivity 80% (12/15) and specificity 89% (41/46) for malignancy. Across readers and patients, 197 pairs of CI BI-RADS and CI&DOT BI-RADS assessments were assigned. Adjunctive US-guided DOT achieved a net decrease in 23.5% (31/132) of suspicious (CI BI-RADS ≥ 4A) assessments of benign lesions (34 correct downgrades and 3 incorrect upgrades). 38.3% (31/81) of 4A assessments were appropriately downgraded. No cancer was downgraded to a non-actionable assessment. Interreader agreement analysis demonstrated kappa = 0.48-0.53 for CI BI-RADS and kappa = 0.28-0.44 for CI&DOT BI-RADS.
CONCLUSIONS: Integration of US-guided DOT information achieved a 23.5% reduction in suspicious BI-RADS assessments for benign lesions. Larger studies are warranted, with attention to improved reader agreement.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:145 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
European journal of radiology - 145(2021) vom: 15. Dez., Seite 110029 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Poplack, Steven P [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Breast cancer |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 07.12.2021 Date Revised 02.12.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110029 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM333392108 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM333392108 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225221554.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110029 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1111.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM333392108 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34801874 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0720-048X(21)00510-6 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Poplack, Steven P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Prospective assessment of adjunctive ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in women undergoing breast biopsy |b Impact on BI-RADS assessments |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 07.12.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 02.12.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a PURPOSE: To assess the impact of adjunctive ultrasound guided diffuse optical tomography (US-guided DOT) on BI-RADS assessment in women undergoing US-guided breast biopsy | ||
| 520 | |a METHOD: This prospective study enrolled women referred for US-guided breast biopsy between 3/5/2019 and 3/19/2020. Participants underwent US-guided DOT immediately before biopsy. The US-guided DOT acquisition generated average maximum total hemoglobin (HbT) spatial maps and quantitative HbT values. Four radiologists blinded to histopathology assessed conventional imaging (CI) to assign a CI BI-RADS assessment and then integrated DOT information in assigning a CI&DOT BI-RADS assessment. HbT was compared between benign and malignant lesions using an ANOVA test and Tukey's test. Benign biopsies were tabulated, deeming BI-RADS ≥ 4A as positive. Reader agreement was assessed | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Among 61 included women (mean age 48 years), biopsy demonstrated 15 (24.6%) malignant and 46 (75.4%) benign lesions. Mean HbT was 55.3 ± 22.6 µM in benign lesions versus 85.4 ± 15.6 µM in cancers (p < .001). HbT threshold of 78.5 µM achieved sensitivity 80% (12/15) and specificity 89% (41/46) for malignancy. Across readers and patients, 197 pairs of CI BI-RADS and CI&DOT BI-RADS assessments were assigned. Adjunctive US-guided DOT achieved a net decrease in 23.5% (31/132) of suspicious (CI BI-RADS ≥ 4A) assessments of benign lesions (34 correct downgrades and 3 incorrect upgrades). 38.3% (31/81) of 4A assessments were appropriately downgraded. No cancer was downgraded to a non-actionable assessment. Interreader agreement analysis demonstrated kappa = 0.48-0.53 for CI BI-RADS and kappa = 0.28-0.44 for CI&DOT BI-RADS | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Integration of US-guided DOT information achieved a 23.5% reduction in suspicious BI-RADS assessments for benign lesions. Larger studies are warranted, with attention to improved reader agreement | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Breast cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Breast ultrasound | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Diffuse optical tomography | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Optical imaging | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Predictive value | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Young, Catherine A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hagemann, Ian S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Luo, Jingqin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Herman, Cheryl R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wiele, Kimberly |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Shuying |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zeng, Yifeng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Covington, Matthew F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhu, Quing |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t European journal of radiology |d 1993 |g 145(2021) vom: 15. Dez., Seite 110029 |w (DE-627)NLM012952397 |x 1872-7727 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:145 |g year:2021 |g day:15 |g month:12 |g pages:110029 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110029 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 145 |j 2021 |b 15 |c 12 |h 110029 | ||