-
Something wrong with this record ?
Breast imaging using 3D electrical impedance tomography
Sachin Prasad N, Dana Houserkova, Jan Campbell
Language English Country Czech Republic
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2001
Free Medical Journals
from 1998
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2007-06-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2001
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Electric Impedance diagnostic use MeSH
- Evaluation Studies as Topic MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Mammography methods instrumentation utilization MeSH
- Breast Neoplasms diagnosis MeSH
- Sensitivity and Specificity MeSH
- Statistics as Topic MeSH
- Tomography methods instrumentation utilization MeSH
- Ultrasonography, Mammary methods instrumentation utilization MeSH
- Imaging, Three-Dimensional methods instrumentation utilization MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Female MeSH
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.
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