ArticleMedical physics2015
Determinants of the reliability of ultrasound tomography sound speed estimates as a surrogate for volumetric breast density.
Article in Medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term changes in ultrasound tomography measures of breast density and treatment-associated endocrine symptoms after tamoxifen therapy.NPJ breast cancer · 2023Article
- Rapid Reductions in Breast Density following Tamoxifen Therapy as Evaluated by Whole-Breast Ultrasound Tomography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Quantitative ultrasound imaging of soft biological tissues: a primer for radiologists and medical physicists.Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- Using Whole Breast Ultrasound Tomography to Improve Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: A Novel Risk Factor Based on the Quantitative Tissue Property of Sound Speed.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Quantitative assessment of breast density using transmission ultrasound tomography.Medical physics · 2019Article
- Speed of sound ultrasound: a pilot study on a novel technique to identify sarcopenia in seniors.European radiology · 2019Article
- Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?European radiology · 2018Article
- Efficient Segmentation of a Breast in B-Mode Ultrasound Tomography Using Three-Dimensional GrabCut (GC3D).Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Ultrasound Tomography Evaluation of Breast Density: A Comparison With Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Investigative radiology · 2017Article
- Ultrasound tomography imaging with waveform sound speed: Parenchymal changes in women undergoing tamoxifen therapy.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2017Article
- Automatic Segmentation of Ultrasound Tomography Image.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Using Speed of Sound Imaging to Characterize Breast Density.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2017Observational
- Using ultrasound tomography to identify the distributions of density throughout the breast.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2016Article
- Whole Breast Sound Speed Measurement from US Tomography Correlates Strongly with Volumetric Breast Density from Mammography.Journal of breast imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHigh breast density, as measured by mammography, is associated with increased breast cancer risk, but standard methods of assessment have limitations including 2D representation of breast tissue, distortion due to breast compression, and use of ionizing radiation. Ultrasound tomography (UST) is a novel imaging method that averts these limitations and uses sound speed measures rather than x-ray imaging to estimate breast density. The authors evaluated the reproducibility of measures of speed of sound and changes in this parameter using UST.
methodsOne experienced and five newly trained raters measured sound speed in serial UST scans for 22 women (two scans per person) to assess inter-rater reliability. Intrarater reliability was assessed for four raters. A random effects model was used to calculate the percent variation in sound speed and change in sound speed attributable to subject, scan, rater, and repeat reads. The authors estimated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for these measures based on data from the authors' experienced rater.
resultsMedian (range) time between baseline and follow-up UST scans was five (1-13) months. Contributions of factors to sound speed variance were differences between subjects (86.0%), baseline versus follow-up scans (7.5%), inter-rater evaluations (1.1%), and intrarater reproducibility (∼0%). When evaluating change in sound speed between scans, 2.7% and ∼0% of variation were attributed to inter- and intrarater variation, respectively. For the experienced rater's repeat reads, agreement for sound speed was excellent (ICC = 93.4%) and for change in sound speed substantial (ICC = 70.4%), indicating very good reproducibility of these measures.
conclusionsUST provided highly reproducible sound speed measurements, which reflect breast density, suggesting that UST has utility in sensitively assessing change in density.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.