디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제13권9호
  • /
  • Pages.489-495
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

디지털 유방촬영술에서 BI-RADS의 구분에 따른 알고리즘별 영상의 융복합적 평가

Convergence of the Image Evaluation by BI-RADS Classification in Accordance with Algorithms in DR Mammography

  • 이미화 (한서대학교 보건의료학과, 강동경희대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Lee, Mi-Hwa (Dept. of Health Care, Hanseo University, Dept. of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at GANGDONG)
  • 투고 : 2015.06.19
  • 심사 : 2015.09.20
  • 발행 : 2015.09.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

BI-RADS의 구분에 따라 Algorithm의 변화로 영상의 질을 개선하는 기법을 이용하여 시각적 가시화의 차이를 일치도와 민감도로 평가하였다. 유방촬영을 시행한 172명을 대상으로 유방촬영의 판독소견과 자료 체계의 신뢰도를 평가하였다. Category 5단계(C0,C1,C2,C3,C4), 유방 실질 함유량 4단계(Fatty, Fibroglandular, Heterogeneous nodular, Diffuse dense), 병변 3종류(석회화, 결절, 종괴)로 분류하여 TE와 PV의 신뢰도를 평가하고, 민감도와 진단의 일치도, 정확도를 평가함으로 다방면의 융복합적 분석을 하였다. TE보다 PV가 병변의 신뢰도와 민감도와 정확도가 높았다. 유방 실질 함유량에 따른 평가에서 정확도는 PV가 높았다. TE에서는 Fatty는 모두에서, Fibroglandular는 종괴와 석회화가, Diffuse dense는 결절과 석회화가 구별이 용이하였다. PV에서는 Fatty는 모두에서, Fibroglandular는 결절, Heterogeneous nodular은 결절과 종괴, Diffuse dense는 결절과 석회화가 구별이 용이하였다. 민감도는 결절은 Fatty, Fibroglandular, Heterogeneous nodular에서 TE가 더 민감했고, 종괴에서는 Heterogeneous nodular, Diffuse dense에서 TE가 더 민감했으며, 석회화에서는 모두에서 TE가 더 민감하였다. 이에 Algorithm 기법을 적절히 변화시켜 활용한다면 진단과 판독에 정확성을 높일 것이라 사료된다.

Image availability evaluated by the degree of agreement and sensitive using the process improve visualization according to the Algorithm modification in Image Post-Processing. Reliability measured by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 172 patients visit same period divided by BI-RADS, category five stages, and contents of breast parenchyma into Calcification, Nodule and Mass. Evaluated the TE/PV image reliability, visualization sensitive, agreement of diagnosis. Convergence analysis was an in various fields. According to the result of this research, PV has higher sensitive and accuracy about lesions than TE visual and there is a difference insensitive by contents of breast parenchyma. Therefore, practical use of Algorithm Modification(Tissue Equalization: TE, Premium View: PV) is expected to improve more accurate, useful diagnosis, which has not been easy until now.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS: mammography. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
  2. Kopans D, D'Orsi C."ACR system enhances mammography reporting". Diagn Imaging (San Franc), Vol.14,pp.125-132,1992.
  3. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging and reporting system-ultrasound (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
  4. Youn Jeong Kim,"Categorization and Evaluation of Usefulness of Breast Lesions with using Ultrasound BI-RADS",J Korean Radiol Soc,Vol.54,pp.313-318, 2006. https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.2006.54.4.313
  5. Seokyoon Choi,"Denoising of Digital Mammography Images Using Wavelet Transform", J Korean Radiol Soc, Vol.7,No.3.pp.181-189, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2013.7.3.181
  6. Kolb T.M. ; Lichy J. ; Mercado C. ; Koenigsberg T. ; Brown M. ; New-House J.H. "A Novel Post-processing Algorithm for Digital Mammography: Effect on Conspicuity, Sensitivity, Speed and Confidence", columbia Prebyterian Medical Center, New York.
  7. Williams MB, Raghunathan P, More MJ, et al. "Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography". Med Phys. Vol.35, pp.2414-2423, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2912177
  8. Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, et al. "The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting". J Digit Imag.Vol.10, pp.174-82, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168840
  9. Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, et al. "Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms?". J Digit Imag, Vol.10, pp.:79-84, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168559
  10. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO, et al. "Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography effects of image processing and lesion type". Radiology. Vol.226, pp.153-60. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2261012024
  11. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD."The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories". AJR Am J Roentgenol. Vol.171, pp.35-40, 1998. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759
  12. Berube M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Oliva D."Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy", Can Assoc Radiol J. Vol.49,pp.223-228,1998.
  13. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC."BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy". Radiology. Vol.211, pp.845-850, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn31845
  14. Tan YY, Wee SB, Tan MP, Chong BK."Positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization in an asian population". Asian J Surg Vol.27, pp.186-191, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60030-0
  15. Shtern F."Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute". Radiology, Vol.183, pp.629-630, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584908
  16. Nariya Cho, Joo Hee Cha, Woo Kyung Moon,"Digital Mammography", J Korean Radiol Soc, Vol.52, pp.225-231, 2005. https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.2005.52.4.225
  17. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ."The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities". Phys Med Biol, Vol.39, pp.1629-1638, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/39/10/008
  18. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood S, D'Orsi C, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al."Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography". Radiology, Vol.215, pp.554-562, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ma15554
  19. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol Vol.179, pp.671-677,2002. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.3.1790671