Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2023
Efficiency and impact factors of anatomical intelligence for breast and hand-held ultrasound in lesion detection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dai Chaochao, Bao Lingyun, Yan Hongju, Zhu Luoxi, Xu Xiaojing, Tan Yanjuan, Yu Lifang, Yang Jing, Jiang Chenxiang, Shen Yingzhao
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficiency and impact factors of anatomical intelligence for breast (AI-Breast) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in lesion detection.
METHODS: A total of 172 outpatient women were randomly selected, underwent AI-Breast ultrasound (Group AI) once and HHUS twice. HHUS was performed by breast imaging radiologists (Group A) and general radiologists (Group B). For the AI-Breast examination, a trained technician performed the whole-breast scan and data acquisition, while other general radiologists performed image interpretation. The examination time and lesion detection rate were recorded. The impact factors for breast lesion detection, including breast cup size, number of lesions, and benign or malignant lesions were analyzed.
RESULTS: The detection rates of Group AI, A, and B were 92.8 ± 17.0%, 95.0 ± 13.6%, and 85.0 ± 22.9%, respectively. Comparable lesion detection rates were observed in Group AI and Group A (P > 0.05), but a significantly lower lesion detection rate was observed in Group B compared to the other two (both P < 0.05). Regarding missed diagnosis rates of malignant lesions, comparable performance was observed in Group AI, Group A, and Group B (8% vs. 4% vs. 14%, all P > 0.05). Scan times of Groups AI, A, and B were 262.15 ± 40.4 s, 237.5 ± 110.3 s, 281.2 ± 86.1 s, respectively. The scan time of Group AI was significantly higher than Group A (P < 0.01), but was slightly lower than Group B (P > 0.05). We found a strong linear correlation between scan time and cup size in Group AI (r = 0.745). No impacts of cup size and number of lesions were found on the lesion detection rate in Group AI (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: With the assist of AI-Breast system, the lesion detection rate of AI-Breast ultrasound was comparable to that of a breast imaging radiologist and superior to that of the general radiologist. AI-Breast ultrasound may be used as a potential approach for breast lesions surveillance.
METHODS: A total of 172 outpatient women were randomly selected, underwent AI-Breast ultrasound (Group AI) once and HHUS twice. HHUS was performed by breast imaging radiologists (Group A) and general radiologists (Group B). For the AI-Breast examination, a trained technician performed the whole-breast scan and data acquisition, while other general radiologists performed image interpretation. The examination time and lesion detection rate were recorded. The impact factors for breast lesion detection, including breast cup size, number of lesions, and benign or malignant lesions were analyzed.
RESULTS: The detection rates of Group AI, A, and B were 92.8 ± 17.0%, 95.0 ± 13.6%, and 85.0 ± 22.9%, respectively. Comparable lesion detection rates were observed in Group AI and Group A (P > 0.05), but a significantly lower lesion detection rate was observed in Group B compared to the other two (both P < 0.05). Regarding missed diagnosis rates of malignant lesions, comparable performance was observed in Group AI, Group A, and Group B (8% vs. 4% vs. 14%, all P > 0.05). Scan times of Groups AI, A, and B were 262.15 ± 40.4 s, 237.5 ± 110.3 s, 281.2 ± 86.1 s, respectively. The scan time of Group AI was significantly higher than Group A (P < 0.01), but was slightly lower than Group B (P > 0.05). We found a strong linear correlation between scan time and cup size in Group AI (r = 0.745). No impacts of cup size and number of lesions were found on the lesion detection rate in Group AI (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: With the assist of AI-Breast system, the lesion detection rate of AI-Breast ultrasound was comparable to that of a breast imaging radiologist and superior to that of the general radiologist. AI-Breast ultrasound may be used as a potential approach for breast lesions surveillance.