Comparison of mammography and transillumination light scanning in the detection of breast lesions

Gisvold, JJ; Brown, LR; Swee, R G; Raygor, DJ; Dickerson, N; Ranfranz, MK

doi:10.2214/ajr.147.1.191

Cited by 34 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…GISVOLD et al (7) re ported that 22 of 67 cancers were not identified by lightscan ning, 12 of these in mammographically dense breasts, and In this study, lightscanning was found t o be inferior t o m a m m o g r a p h y in women with mammographically dense breasts mainly because of the large number of false-positive cases. One of the reasons for this could be that fibroadenomas might have increased concentrations of erythrocytes even if the average concentration in carcinoma is reported to be higher (15).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

Diagnostic Accuracy of Lightscanning and Mammography in Women with Dense Breasts

Jarlman¹,

Andersson²,

Balldin³

et al. 1992

Acta Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diagnostic accuracy of lightscanning and mammography in 610 breasts with mammographically dense parenchymal patterns was investigated. Lightscanning identified 31 out of 36 cancers and mammography 32. Lightscanning and mammography were in agreement in 28 cases of cancer. One noninvasive lobular carcinoma was not identified by either modality. Four cancers were not cor rectly identified with lightscanning alone and 3 cancers with mam mography alone. Of the 574 breasts without cancer, lightscanning falsely denoted 101 (18%) as possibly being cancerous (false-posi tives). The corresponding figure for mammography was 25 (4%). Thus, lightscanning, as performed in this study, has the same sensi tivity as mammography in detecting cancer in mammographically dense breasts. However, its usefulness is limited by a low predictive value of a positive test (high rate of false-positives).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

Diagnostic Accuracy of Lightscanning and Mammography in Women with Dense Breasts

Jarlman¹,

Andersson²,

Balldin³

et al. 1992

Acta Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both DOWLE et al (9) and GREENE et al (13) reported good results from lightscanning for all histologie types. However, several authors have reported a reduced ability of lightscan ning to detect small cancers by lightscanning, especially carcinomas in situ (1,12,20,21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies on the detection of breast cancer by lightscanning have shown discordant results (1,2,4,9,12,13,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21) but there is strong evidence that the value of the method is limited concerning small carcinomas (1,12,20,21), mainly due to scattering of the transilluminated light in the breast tissue (5,10,22).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relation between Lightscanning and the Histologic and Mammographic Appearance of Malignant Breast Tumors

Jarlman¹,

Balldin²,

Andersson³

et al. 1992

Acta Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation between real-time transillumination (lightscanning) and the histologie appearance of 243 breast carcinomas was eval uated. Lightscanning mainly failed in identifying ductal and lobular carcinomas in situ. The result of lightscanning was also poor re garding small, invasive carcinomas. The absorption patterns in elastosis and scar tissue associated with carcinoma played no important role in the ability of lightscanning to identify a cancer. The relation between the lightscanning and mammographie appearance of 85 breast cancers from the same material was also evaluated. Lightscanning performed poorly in identifying tumors characterized by calcifications as compared to tumors with other mammographie appearances. However, the difference was not significant.

show abstract

“…Conventional transillumination of the breast has been shown to be inferior to x-ray mammography in terms of sensitivity and specificity. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Contrast improvement has been proposed by the determination of the time a photon had traveled within the tissue prior to contributing to an image. This time determination can be accomplished either by direct time-of-flight measurements after short light pulses (time-domain approach) or by phase detection of intensity modulated light [7][8][9] (frequency-domain approach).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast Features of Breast Cancer in Frequency-Domain Laser Scanning Mammography

Moesta¹,

Fantini

Jess

et al. 1998

J. Biomed. Opt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency-domain optical mammography has been advocated to improve contrast and thus cancer detectability in breast transillumination. To the best of our knowledge, this report provides the first systematic clinical results of a frequency-domain laser scanning mammograph (FLM). The instrument provides monochromatic light at 690 and 810 nm, whose intensity is modulated at 110.0010 and 110.0008 MHz, respectively. The breast is scanned by stepwise positioning of source and detector, and amplitude and phase for both wavelengths are measured by a photomultiplier tube using heterodyne detection. Images are formed representing amplitude or phase data on linear gray scales. Furthermore, various algorithms carrying on more than one signal (amplitude ratio, phase difference, μa,μs',N) were essayed. Twenty visible cancers out of 25 cancers in the first 59 investigations were analyzed for their quantitative contrast with respect to the whole breast or to defined reference areas. Contrast definitions refer to the signal itself (definition 1), to the signal noise (definition 2), or were based on nonparametric comparison (definition 3). The amplitude signal provides better contrast than the phase signal. Ratio images between red and infrared amplitudes gave variable results; in some cases the tumor contrast was canceled. The algorithms to determine μa and μs' from amplitude and phase data did not significantly improve upon objective contrast. The N algorithm, using the phase signal to flatten the amplitude signal did significantly improve upon contrast according to contrast definitions 1 and 2, however, did not improve upon nonparametric contrast. Thus, with the current instrumentation, the phase signal is helpful to correct for the complex and variable geometry of the breast. However, an independent informational content for tumor differentiation could not be determined. The flat field algorithm did greatly enhance optical contrast in comparison with amplitude or amplitude ratio images. Further evaluation of FLM will have to be based on the N-algorithm images. © 1998 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

show abstract

Comparison of mammography and transillumination light scanning in the detection of breast lesions

Cited by 34 publications

References 10 publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Lightscanning and Mammography in Women with Dense Breasts

Diagnostic Accuracy of Lightscanning and Mammography in Women with Dense Breasts

Relation between Lightscanning and the Histologic and Mammographic Appearance of Malignant Breast Tumors

Contrast Features of Breast Cancer in Frequency-Domain Laser Scanning Mammography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About