Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Breast imaging using 3D electrical impedance tomography

Sachin Prasad N, Dana Houserkova, Jan Campbell

Language English Country Czech Republic

Aim: To determine the diagnostic efficiency of 3D Eletrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) compared toMammography (MG) and Ultrasonography (USG) in imaging the breast.Materials and Methods: A group of 88 patients presenting with various breast complaints was examined usingcombined Mammography and Ultrasonography (MG & USG) or either of these modalities alone. The same patientswere then examined using the 3D EIT imaging system “MEIK”.The fi ndings were then compared. The sensitivity of these modalities for this group of patients were later determinedand statistically analysed. Results: Of the total of 88 patients, 59 fi ndings were “suspicious” by any of the 3 modalities alone or by their combination.EIT had a sensitivity of 77.8 % compared to MG with a sensitivity of 83.3 % and USG with a sensitivity of94.4 % regarding cases of fi brocystic mastitis. For cases involving cysts, EIT had 100 % sensitivity which was the sameas that for USG compared to MG with a sensitivity of only 81 %. Among cases of fi broadenoma, EIT had a sensitivityof just 68.8 % compared to MG with a sensitivity of 87.5 % and USG with a sensitivity of 75 %. Finally among cases ofcarcinoma, EIT had a sensitivity of 75 % compared to the sensitivity of 100 % of MG and USG in our group of patients.The study revealed that there was no overall signifi cant diff erence in sensitivity between MG-USG (p = 0.219) andMG-EIT (p = 0.779) and USG-EIT (p = 0.169). However, in regard to identifying cysts there was signifi cant diff erencein the sensitivity of MG compared to USG & EIT suggesting that EIT has a role in these cases.Conclusion: Electrical impedance could be used as an adjunct to Mammography and Ultrasonography for breastcancer detection. However, the diff erentiation of malignant from benign lesions based on impedance measurementsneeds further investigation. Multifrequency electrical impedance imaging appears the most promising for detectingbreast malignancies but methodological improvements need to be made to realise its potential.

Bibliography, etc.

Lit.: 15

000      
00000naa 2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc10009376
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20111210162322.0
008      
100420s2008 xr e eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$2 doi $a 10.5507/bp.2008.024
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Prasad, Sachin N. $7 _AN047649
245    10
$a Breast imaging using 3D electrical impedance tomography / $c Sachin Prasad N, Dana Houserkova, Jan Campbell
314    __
$a Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc
504    __
$a Lit.: 15
520    9_
$a Aim: To determine the diagnostic efficiency of 3D Eletrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) compared toMammography (MG) and Ultrasonography (USG) in imaging the breast.Materials and Methods: A group of 88 patients presenting with various breast complaints was examined usingcombined Mammography and Ultrasonography (MG & USG) or either of these modalities alone. The same patientswere then examined using the 3D EIT imaging system “MEIK”.The fi ndings were then compared. The sensitivity of these modalities for this group of patients were later determinedand statistically analysed. Results: Of the total of 88 patients, 59 fi ndings were “suspicious” by any of the 3 modalities alone or by their combination.EIT had a sensitivity of 77.8 % compared to MG with a sensitivity of 83.3 % and USG with a sensitivity of94.4 % regarding cases of fi brocystic mastitis. For cases involving cysts, EIT had 100 % sensitivity which was the sameas that for USG compared to MG with a sensitivity of only 81 %. Among cases of fi broadenoma, EIT had a sensitivityof just 68.8 % compared to MG with a sensitivity of 87.5 % and USG with a sensitivity of 75 %. Finally among cases ofcarcinoma, EIT had a sensitivity of 75 % compared to the sensitivity of 100 % of MG and USG in our group of patients.The study revealed that there was no overall signifi cant diff erence in sensitivity between MG-USG (p = 0.219) andMG-EIT (p = 0.779) and USG-EIT (p = 0.169). However, in regard to identifying cysts there was signifi cant diff erencein the sensitivity of MG compared to USG & EIT suggesting that EIT has a role in these cases.Conclusion: Electrical impedance could be used as an adjunct to Mammography and Ultrasonography for breastcancer detection. However, the diff erentiation of malignant from benign lesions based on impedance measurementsneeds further investigation. Multifrequency electrical impedance imaging appears the most promising for detectingbreast malignancies but methodological improvements need to be made to realise its potential.
650    _2
$a nádory prsu $x diagnóza $7 D001943
650    _2
$a elektrická impedance $x diagnostické užití $7 D017097
650    _2
$a tomografie $x metody $x přístrojové vybavení $x využití $7 D014054
650    _2
$a zobrazování trojrozměrné $x metody $x přístrojové vybavení $x využití $7 D021621
650    _2
$a mamografie $x metody $x přístrojové vybavení $x využití $7 D008327
650    _2
$a ultrasonografie prsů $x metody $x přístrojové vybavení $x využití $7 D016217
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
650    _2
$a statistika jako téma $7 D013223
650    _2
$a hodnotící studie jako téma $7 D005069
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
700    1_
$a Houserková, Dana $7 xx0033653
700    1_
$a Campbell, Jan. $7 _AN047663
773    0_
$w MED00012606 $t Biomedical papers $g Roč. 152, č. 1 (2008), s. 151-154 $x 1213-8118
856    41
$u http://biomed.papers.upol.cz/pdfs/bio/2008/01/24.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 1502 $c 958 $y 8
990    __
$a 20100419115931 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20100511090513 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 723251 $s 586366
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2008 $b 152 $c 1 $d 151-154 $i 1213-8118 $m Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacký, Olomouc Czech Republic $x MED00012606
LZP    __
$a 2010-22/dkal

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...