Publications (2)8.5 Total impact
-
Article: Sonohysterography: do 3D reconstructed images provide additional value?
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively determine the value of adding 3D multiplanar sonography to 2D sonohysterography. Between September 2003 and April 2005, 80 women (mean age, 43.5 years; range, 26-78 years) underwent sonohysterography with both conventional 2D sonohysterography and 3D multiplanar imaging (volume of data acquired and reconstructed in the transverse, sagittal, and coronal planes). Three blinded readers interpreted the 2D scans alone and then the 2D and 3D images together. Visualization of endometrial abnormality (polyps, fibroids, or septations) and definition of fundal contour were scored by each reader on a three-point scale (1, visualized; 2, unsure; 3, not visualized). Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used to assess mean differences between findings. Reader agreement was determined with the kappa statistic. Pathologic correlation was performed when the findings were available. Average (mean +/- SD) reader scores for identification of endometrial abnormality were not significantly different: 1.70 +/- 0.91 for 2D alone versus 1.69 +/- 0.92 for 2D and 3D combined (p = 0.38). There also was no significant difference when polyps (2.14 +/- 0.90 vs 2.12 +/- 0.93), fibroids (2.57 +/- 0.79 vs 2.53 +/- 0.82), and septations (2.88 +/- 0.39 vs 2.87 +/- 0.42) were evaluated separately. Average scores for definition of fundal contour were significantly (p < 0.0001) different (2.93 +/- 0.34 for 2D alone versus 1.45 +/- 0.80 for 2D and 3D combined). Agreement between readers was found with average kappa values of 0.72 for 2D alone and 0.78 for 2D and 3D. For the 42 subjects for whom pathologic findings were available, readers identified 92% of the abnormalities. Three-dimensional reformations improve visualization of the uterine fundus and aid in identification or exclusion of a fundal contour abnormality but do not add value in the detection of endometrial abnormalities.American Journal of Roentgenology 04/2008; 190(4):W227-33. · 2.78 Impact Factor -
Article: Accuracy of segmentation of a commercial computer-aided detection system for mammography.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the accuracy of segmentation in a commercially available computer-aided detection (CAD) system. Approval for this study was obtained from the authors' institutional review board. Informed consent was not required by the board for this review, as data were stripped of patient identifiers. Two thousand twenty mammograms from 507 women were analyzed with the hardware and software of a commercial CAD system. The accuracy of the segmentation process was determined semiquantitatively and categorized as near perfect if the skin line of the breast was accurately detected, acceptable if only subcutaneous fat was excluded, or unacceptable if any breast parenchyma was excluded from consideration. The accuracy of segmentation was compared for different breast densities and film sizes by using logistic regression (P < .05). Overall, segmentation was near perfect or acceptable in almost 96.8% of images. However, segmentation defects were significantly more common in mammograms with heterogeneously dense breast tissue (8% unacceptable) than in those with fatty replaced (0% unacceptable), scattered (1.2% unacceptable), or extremely dense (1.8% unacceptable) breast parenchyma (P < .05). For images with unacceptable segmentation, the average percentage of breast parenchyma excluded was almost 25% (range, 5%-100%), with no significant differences among breast densities. For one commercial CAD system, segmentation was usually near perfect or acceptable but was unacceptable more than five times more frequently for mammograms of breasts with heterogeneously dense parenchyma than for those with all other breast densities. On average, one-quarter of the breast parenchyma was excluded from CAD analysis for images with unacceptable segmentation.Radiology 06/2005; 235(2):385-90. · 5.73 Impact Factor
