A Comparison Study between Compound Imaging and Conventional Ultrasonography in Subareolar Area.
10.4048/jkbcs.2003.6.1.15
- Author:
Bo Kyoung SEO
1
;
Hae Jeong JEON
;
Jeong Hee PARK
;
Kyu Ran CHO
;
Ji Young LEE
;
Bo Kyung JE
;
Eun Jeong CHOI
;
June Young LEE
;
Jeoung Won BAE
;
Seok Jin KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Konkuk University Hospital, Korea. ssbk@dreamwiz.com
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Breast;
US;
Breast;
Ducts;
Ultrasound (US);
Technology;
Ultrasound (US);
Comparative studies
- MeSH:
Breast;
Humans;
Shadowing (Histology);
Ultrasonography*
- From:Journal of Korean Breast Cancer Society
2003;6(1):15-19
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The subareolar area is often difficult to evaluate ultrasonographically due to tissue shadowing, which obscures visualization of ducts and parenchymal tissue. The purpose of this study is to determine if real-time compound imaging improves evaluation of normal subareolar tissue and solid nodules in subareolar area compared to conventional ultrasonography. METHODS: 190 images of the subareolar area were obtained from 135 patients from March 2001 to July 2002. Thirty-three of 190 images showed solid nodules, extraductal nodules in 30 and intraductal nodules in three. We scanned both conventional and compound imaging with a stationary probe, to maintain an identical projection and tissue pressure. We used two compound techniques; survey mode (S) is made by 3 coplanar images and target mode (T) by 9 coplanar images. The evaluating points were 1) reduction in the density of shadowing, 2) resolution of duct wall, 3) resolution of duct lumen, 4) margin of nodule, and 5) internal echoes of nodule. In a blinded fashion, three radiologists graded the quality of images on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: For reviewer 1/2/3, S showed grade improvements in 1) reduction in the density of shadowing (0.4+/-0.6/1.1 0.6/0.5+/-0.5), 2) resolution of duct wall (0.9+/-0.2/1.5+/-0.6/1.0+/-0.5), 3) resolution of duct lumen (0.9+/-0.2/1.6 +/-0.6/0.7+/-0.6), 4) margin of nodule (1.0+/-0.3/1.5+/-0.5/1.2+/-0.5), and 5) internal echoes of nodule (1.1+/-0.3/1.5+/- 0.5/1.2+/-0.4) and T showed grade improvements in 1) reduction in the density of shadowing (0.4+/-0.6/1.2+/-0.6/0.7+/-0.7), 2) resolution of duct wall (1.0+/-0.3/1.5+/-0.6/1.1+/-0.5), 3) resolution of duct lumen (0.9+/-0.3/1.6+/-0.6/0.8+/-0.6), 4) margin of nodule (1.0+/-0.3/1.5+/-0.6/1.2+/-0.5), and 5) internal echoes of nodule (1.1+/-0.3/1.5+/-0.6/1.3+/-0.4). In all evaluating points, two modes of real-time compound imaging were superior to conventional imaging (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between two modes of compound imaging. CONCLUSION: Real-time compound imaging improves evaluation of normal subareolar tissue and subareolar solid nodules compared to conventional ultrasonography by reducing shadowing and increasing anatomic resolution of ducts.
