Premium
Does Adding Diffuse Optical Tomography to Sonography Improve Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions?
Author(s) -
La Yun Bo,
Kim Sun Mi,
Jang Mijung,
Ahn Hye Shin,
Lyou Chae Yeon,
Kim Mi Sun,
Kim Sun Ah,
Song Tai-Kyong,
Yoo Yangmo,
Chang Jin Ho,
Kim Youngmi
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.7863/ultra.34.5.749
Subject(s) - medicine , intraclass correlation , malignancy , radiology , receiver operating characteristic , diffuse optical imaging , breast imaging , tomography , nuclear medicine , lesion , mammography , pathology , breast cancer , cancer , clinical psychology , psychometrics
Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the added value of diffuse optical tomographic categories combined with conventional sonography for differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions. Methods In this retrospective database review, we included 145 breast lesions (116 benign and 29 malignant) from 145 women (mean age, 46 years; range, 16–86 years). Five radiologists independently reviewed sonograms with and without a diffuse optical tomographic category. Each lesion was scored on a scale of 0% to 100% for suspicion of malignancy and rated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification. Diagnostic performance was analyzed by comparing area under receiver operating characteristic curve values. Reader agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients. Results In the multireader multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis, adding a diffuse optical tomographic category to sonography improved the diagnostic accuracy of sonography (mean areas under the curve, 0.923 for sonography alone and 0.969 for sonography with diffuse optical tomography; P = .039). The interobserver correlation was also improved (0.798 for sonography alone and 0.904 for sonography with diffuse optical tomography). The specificity increased for 4 reviewers from a mean of 19.5% to 45.8% ( P < .001 for reviewers 1–4; P = .238 for reviewer 5) with no significant change in the sensitivity. When the diffuse optical tomographic category was applied strictly, the specificity increased for all reviewers from a mean of 19.5% to 68.3% ( P < .001 for all reviewers) with no significant change in the sensitivity. Conclusions The addition of diffuse optical tomographic categories to sonography may improve diagnostic performance and markedly decrease false‐positive biopsy recommendations.