Ultrasound‐Guided Diffuse Optical Tomography for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Meta‐analysis
Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched from inception to February 14, 2016. Sens...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of ultrasound in medicine 2017-03, Vol.36 (3), p.485-492 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 492 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 485 |
| container_title | Journal of ultrasound in medicine |
| container_volume | 36 |
| creator | Wu, Tao Feng, Jin‐Chun Tuerhong, Shabier Wang, Bin Yang, Liang Zhao, Qian Dilixiati, Jinsihan Xu, Wen‐Ting Zhu, Li‐Ping |
| description | Objectives
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Methods
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched from inception to February 14, 2016. Sensitivity, specificity, and other information were extracted from the included studies. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled by a bivariate mixed‐effects binary regression model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored by Higgins and Deeks tests, respectively.
Results
Seven studies including 768 women with 886 lesions were analyzed. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85%–98%), 77% (95% CI, 66%–85%), and 57 (95% CI, 12–267), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 91% (95% CI, 89%–94%). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias existed.
Conclusions
Ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography is useful for differentiating breast lesions. Especially, its sensitivity is excellent. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.7863/ultra.16.03063 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1862949723</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1862949723</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2551-8b6c658a9e0b8d37be6981efacae04d37921d650a18b9dc798ada6e52c1bae083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkb9uFDEQhy0EIkegpUQuafbwn12vTZcECER3SpOrrdn1bDDasw97V-ikFHkEnpEnwbkLaak88nzzG-kbQt5ytmy1kh_mcUqw5GrJJFPyGVnwpmGVUVw-JwsmWl3VwrQn5FXOPxgTjLf1S3IiNJeyVWZB7jYPATnOwf25_305e4eOfvLDMGek17vJ9zDSm7iNtwl23_d0iOnQxoRh8jD5GGgc6DkGfxsoBEfXMJYSwkTPE0Ke6ApzofJHekbXOEFZAwHGffb5NXkxwJjxzeN7SjZfPt9cfK1W15ffLs5WVS-ahle6U71qNBhknXay7VAZzXGAHpDV5cMI7lTDgOvOuL41GhwobETPu0JoeUreH3N3Kf6cMU9263OP4wgB45wt10qY2rRCFnR5RPsUc0442F3yW0h7y5l9MG4Pxi1X9mC8DLx7zJ67Lbon_J_iAtRH4Jcfcf-fOHu1WfOalfP9BSeykcE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1862949723</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ultrasound‐Guided Diffuse Optical Tomography for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Meta‐analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Wu, Tao ; Feng, Jin‐Chun ; Tuerhong, Shabier ; Wang, Bin ; Yang, Liang ; Zhao, Qian ; Dilixiati, Jinsihan ; Xu, Wen‐Ting ; Zhu, Li‐Ping</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Tao ; Feng, Jin‐Chun ; Tuerhong, Shabier ; Wang, Bin ; Yang, Liang ; Zhao, Qian ; Dilixiati, Jinsihan ; Xu, Wen‐Ting ; Zhu, Li‐Ping</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Methods
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched from inception to February 14, 2016. Sensitivity, specificity, and other information were extracted from the included studies. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled by a bivariate mixed‐effects binary regression model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored by Higgins and Deeks tests, respectively.
Results
Seven studies including 768 women with 886 lesions were analyzed. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85%–98%), 77% (95% CI, 66%–85%), and 57 (95% CI, 12–267), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 91% (95% CI, 89%–94%). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias existed.
Conclusions
Ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography is useful for differentiating breast lesions. Especially, its sensitivity is excellent.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-4297</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-9613</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.7863/ultra.16.03063</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28133769</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Breast - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; breast tumor ; breast ultrasound ; Diagnosis, Differential ; diffuse optical tomography ; Female ; Humans ; meta‐analysis ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography, Optical - methods ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods ; ultrasound ; ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography</subject><ispartof>Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2017-03, Vol.36 (3), p.485-492</ispartof><rights>2017 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine</rights><rights>2017 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2551-8b6c658a9e0b8d37be6981efacae04d37921d650a18b9dc798ada6e52c1bae083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2551-8b6c658a9e0b8d37be6981efacae04d37921d650a18b9dc798ada6e52c1bae083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.7863%2Fultra.16.03063$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.7863%2Fultra.16.03063$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28133769$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feng, Jin‐Chun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuerhong, Shabier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Qian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dilixiati, Jinsihan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Wen‐Ting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Li‐Ping</creatorcontrib><title>Ultrasound‐Guided Diffuse Optical Tomography for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Meta‐analysis</title><title>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</title><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><description>Objectives
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Methods
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched from inception to February 14, 2016. Sensitivity, specificity, and other information were extracted from the included studies. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled by a bivariate mixed‐effects binary regression model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored by Higgins and Deeks tests, respectively.
Results
Seven studies including 768 women with 886 lesions were analyzed. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85%–98%), 77% (95% CI, 66%–85%), and 57 (95% CI, 12–267), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 91% (95% CI, 89%–94%). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias existed.
Conclusions
Ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography is useful for differentiating breast lesions. Especially, its sensitivity is excellent.</description><subject>Breast - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>breast tumor</subject><subject>breast ultrasound</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>diffuse optical tomography</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>meta‐analysis</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography, Optical - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</subject><subject>ultrasound</subject><subject>ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography</subject><issn>0278-4297</issn><issn>1550-9613</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkb9uFDEQhy0EIkegpUQuafbwn12vTZcECER3SpOrrdn1bDDasw97V-ikFHkEnpEnwbkLaak88nzzG-kbQt5ytmy1kh_mcUqw5GrJJFPyGVnwpmGVUVw-JwsmWl3VwrQn5FXOPxgTjLf1S3IiNJeyVWZB7jYPATnOwf25_305e4eOfvLDMGek17vJ9zDSm7iNtwl23_d0iOnQxoRh8jD5GGgc6DkGfxsoBEfXMJYSwkTPE0Ke6ApzofJHekbXOEFZAwHGffb5NXkxwJjxzeN7SjZfPt9cfK1W15ffLs5WVS-ahle6U71qNBhknXay7VAZzXGAHpDV5cMI7lTDgOvOuL41GhwobETPu0JoeUreH3N3Kf6cMU9263OP4wgB45wt10qY2rRCFnR5RPsUc0442F3yW0h7y5l9MG4Pxi1X9mC8DLx7zJ67Lbon_J_iAtRH4Jcfcf-fOHu1WfOalfP9BSeykcE</recordid><startdate>201703</startdate><enddate>201703</enddate><creator>Wu, Tao</creator><creator>Feng, Jin‐Chun</creator><creator>Tuerhong, Shabier</creator><creator>Wang, Bin</creator><creator>Yang, Liang</creator><creator>Zhao, Qian</creator><creator>Dilixiati, Jinsihan</creator><creator>Xu, Wen‐Ting</creator><creator>Zhu, Li‐Ping</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201703</creationdate><title>Ultrasound‐Guided Diffuse Optical Tomography for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Meta‐analysis</title><author>Wu, Tao ; Feng, Jin‐Chun ; Tuerhong, Shabier ; Wang, Bin ; Yang, Liang ; Zhao, Qian ; Dilixiati, Jinsihan ; Xu, Wen‐Ting ; Zhu, Li‐Ping</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2551-8b6c658a9e0b8d37be6981efacae04d37921d650a18b9dc798ada6e52c1bae083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Breast - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>breast tumor</topic><topic>breast ultrasound</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>diffuse optical tomography</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>meta‐analysis</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography, Optical - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</topic><topic>ultrasound</topic><topic>ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feng, Jin‐Chun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuerhong, Shabier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Qian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dilixiati, Jinsihan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Wen‐Ting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Li‐Ping</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Tao</au><au>Feng, Jin‐Chun</au><au>Tuerhong, Shabier</au><au>Wang, Bin</au><au>Yang, Liang</au><au>Zhao, Qian</au><au>Dilixiati, Jinsihan</au><au>Xu, Wen‐Ting</au><au>Zhu, Li‐Ping</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ultrasound‐Guided Diffuse Optical Tomography for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Meta‐analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><date>2017-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>485</spage><epage>492</epage><pages>485-492</pages><issn>0278-4297</issn><eissn>1550-9613</eissn><abstract>Objectives
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Methods
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched from inception to February 14, 2016. Sensitivity, specificity, and other information were extracted from the included studies. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled by a bivariate mixed‐effects binary regression model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored by Higgins and Deeks tests, respectively.
Results
Seven studies including 768 women with 886 lesions were analyzed. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85%–98%), 77% (95% CI, 66%–85%), and 57 (95% CI, 12–267), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 91% (95% CI, 89%–94%). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias existed.
Conclusions
Ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography is useful for differentiating breast lesions. Especially, its sensitivity is excellent.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>28133769</pmid><doi>10.7863/ultra.16.03063</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0278-4297 |
| ispartof | Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2017-03, Vol.36 (3), p.485-492 |
| issn | 0278-4297 1550-9613 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1862949723 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Journals |
| subjects | Breast - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging breast tumor breast ultrasound Diagnosis, Differential diffuse optical tomography Female Humans meta‐analysis Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography, Optical - methods Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods ultrasound ultrasound‐guided diffuse optical tomography |
| title | Ultrasound‐Guided Diffuse Optical Tomography for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Meta‐analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T11%3A19%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ultrasound%E2%80%90Guided%20Diffuse%20Optical%20Tomography%20for%20Differentiation%20of%20Benign%20and%20Malignant%20Breast%20Lesions:%20A%20Meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20ultrasound%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Wu,%20Tao&rft.date=2017-03&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=485&rft.epage=492&rft.pages=485-492&rft.issn=0278-4297&rft.eissn=1550-9613&rft_id=info:doi/10.7863/ultra.16.03063&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1862949723%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1862949723&rft_id=info:pmid/28133769&rfr_iscdi=true |