Advertisement

Computerized Ultrasound Risk Evaluation (CURE) System: Development of Combined Transmission and Reflection Ultrasound with New Reconstruction Algorithms for Breast Imaging

  • Peter J. Littrup
  • Neb Duric
  • Stephen Azevedo
  • David Chambers
  • James V. Candy
  • Stephen Johnson
  • Gregory Auner
  • John Rather
  • Earle T. Holsapple
Part of the Acoustical Imaging book series (ACIM, volume 26)

Abstract

Our Computerized Ultrasound Risk Evaluation (CURE) system has been developed to the engineering prototype stage and generated unique data sets of both transmission and reflection ultrasound (US). This paper will help define the clinical underpinnings of the developmental process and interpret the imaging results from a similar perspective. The CURE project was designed to incorporate numerous diagnostic parameters to improve upon two major areas of early breast cancer detection. CURE may provide improved tissue characterization of breast masses and reliable detection of abnormal microcalcifications found in some breast cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Current breast US is limited to mass evaluation, whereas mammography also detects and guides biopsy of malignant calcifications. Screening with CURE remains a distant goal, but improved follow-up of mammographic abnormalities may represent a feasible breakthrough.

Keywords

Sound Speed Synthetic Aperture Radar Ofsound Speed Tissue Characterization Point Scatterer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Liberman L. Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000; 38:791–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Secker-Walker RH, Vacek PM, Hooper GJ, Plante DA, Detsky AS. Screening for breast cancer: time, travel, and out-of-pocket expenses. J Natl Cancer Inst199991:702–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Makoske T, Preletz R, Riley L, Fogarty K, Swank M, Cochrane P, Blisard D. Long-term outcomes of stereotactic breast biopsies. Am Surg. 200066:1104–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cleverley JR, Jackson AR Bateman AC. Pre-operative localization of breast microcalcification using high-frequency ultrasound. Clin Radiol. 1997; 52:924–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skaane P. Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors. Acta Radiol Suppl. 1999;420:1–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teh WL, Wilson AR, Evans AJ, Burrell H, Pinder SE, Ellis IO. Ultrasound guided core biopsy of suspicious mammographic calcifications using high frequency and power Doppler ultrasound. Clin Radiol. 2000; 55:390–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Visible Human Project, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, http://www.rita.nih.gov/research/visible/visible human.html.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goss, S.A., Johnston, R.L. and Dunn, F. Comprehensive compilation of empirical ultrasonic properties of mammalian tissues. J Acoust Soc AM1978; 64:423–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edmonds, P.D., Mortensen, C.L., Hill, J.R., Holland, S.K., Jensen, J.F., Schattner, P. and Valdes, A.D. Ultrasound tissue characterization of breast biopsy specimens. Ultrasound Imaging1991; 13:162–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitch, J.P., Synthetic Aperture RadarSpringer-Verlag1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. J. Devaney. A filtered backpropagation algorithm for diffraction tomography. Ultrasonic Imaging4(4):336–350, October 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    André MP, Janee HS, Martin PJ, Otto GP, Spivey BA, Palmer DA. High-speed data acquisition in a diffraction tomography system employing large-scale toroidal arrays. International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology1997; 8:137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. A. Johnson and M. L. Tracy. Inverse scattering solutions by a sine basis, multiple source, moment method. Part I: Theory, Ultrasonic Imaging5:361–3751983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196:123–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    61 Federal Register 60712-60713 (1996). (http://www.rsna. org/REG/research/regulatory/wfprfcexamples.html)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schreiman JS, Gisvold JJ, Greenleaf JF, Bahn RC. Ultrasound transmission computed tomography of the breast. Radiology1984; 150:523–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Littrup
    • 1
    • 2
  • Neb Duric
    • 3
  • Stephen Azevedo
    • 4
  • David Chambers
    • 4
  • James V. Candy
    • 4
  • Stephen Johnson
    • 5
  • Gregory Auner
    • 6
  • John Rather
    • 7
  • Earle T. Holsapple
    • 7
  1. 1.Departments of RadiologyWayne State UniversityDetroit
  2. 2.Karmanos Cancer InstituteDetroit
  3. 3.Department of Physics and AstronomyAlbuquerque
  4. 4.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermore
  5. 5.TechniScan IncSalt Lake City
  6. 6.Dept. of Electrical and Computer EngineeringWayne State UniversityDetroit
  7. 7.Karmanos Cancer InstituteDetroit

Personalised recommendations