[go: up one dir, main page]

Elseedawy et al., 2014 - Google Patents

Pb. 44. do qualitative patterns of stiffness help differentiate benign from malignant breast masses of similar stiffness during shear wave elastography?

Elseedawy et al., 2014

View PDF
Document ID
14785721358979063655
Author
Elseedawy M
Whelehan P
Vinnicombe S
McLean D
Thomson K
Evans A
Publication year
Publication venue
Breast Cancer Research

External Links

Snippet

Methods A total of 158 consecutive histologically confirmed benign lesions with a mean stiffness> 30 kPa were identified from a prospective database. Forty-nine cancers with the same distribution of stiffness as the benign lesions were identified for comparison. The …
Continue reading at link.springer.com (PDF) (other versions)

Classifications

    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRICAL DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F19/00Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications
    • G06F19/30Medical informatics, i.e. computer-based analysis or dissemination of patient or disease data
    • G06F19/32Medical data management, e.g. systems or protocols for archival or communication of medical images, computerised patient records or computerised general medical references
    • G06F19/321Management of medical image data, e.g. communication or archiving systems such as picture archiving and communication systems [PACS] or related medical protocols such as digital imaging and communications in medicine protocol [DICOM]; Editing of medical image data, e.g. adding diagnosis information
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06TIMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
    • G06T7/00Image analysis
    • G06T7/0002Inspection of images, e.g. flaw detection
    • G06T7/0012Biomedical image inspection
    • G06T7/0014Biomedical image inspection using an image reference approach
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRICAL DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F19/00Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific applications
    • G06F19/30Medical informatics, i.e. computer-based analysis or dissemination of patient or disease data
    • G06F19/34Computer-assisted medical diagnosis or treatment, e.g. computerised prescription or delivery of medication or diets, computerised local control of medical devices, medical expert systems or telemedicine
    • G06F19/345Medical expert systems, neural networks or other automated diagnosis
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06TIMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
    • G06T2207/00Indexing scheme for image analysis or image enhancement
    • G06T2207/30Subject of image; Context of image processing
    • G06T2207/30004Biomedical image processing
    • AHUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61BDIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B8/00Diagnosis using ultrasonic, sonic or infrasonic waves
    • A61B8/08Detecting organic movements or changes, e.g. tumours, cysts, swellings

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Geach et al. PB. 15. An audit of our benign surgical biopsy rate in the prevalent round for the reporting year 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013
Wasan et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis improves the accuracy of the diagnosis of circumscribed lesions because of increase of margin visibility
Joyce et al. PB. 30. Apparent diffusion coefficient and fractional anisotropy values as biomarkers for treatment response in breast cancer
Otsuka et al. Local breast density at lesion sites in diagnostic and previous screening mammograms
Elseedawy et al. Pb. 44. do qualitative patterns of stiffness help differentiate benign from malignant breast masses of similar stiffness during shear wave elastography?
Muscat et al. PB. 17. Are patients who have had total body irradiation at similar risk of breast cancer to those having mantle radiotherapy? A review of the evidence and suggestions on breast imaging surveillance
Evans et al. PB. 25. Implementation of two new digital mammography technologies for Breast Test Wales: more or less accurate?
Daniels et al. PB. 24. How does volumetric breast density change with time?
Meyer et al. PB. 22. Does mammographic compression force at breast screening influence the likelihood of subsequent screening attendance?
Sever et al. PB. 16. Breast screening mammograms: recall or not to recall. What is the golden ratio?
Bonam et al. PB. 36. Imaging in gynaecomastia: audit of referral and imaging practise to establish referral guidelines
Cox et al. PB. 12. Audit and root-cause analysis of classification 2 and 3 interval cancers
Halim et al. PB. 32. Type of breast surgery in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: role of DCE-MRI
Savaridas et al. PB. 41. What is the incidence of internal mammary node lymphadenopathy on CT in primary breast cancer patients within 1 year of a diagnosis?
Hodkin et al. PB. 6. Management of radial scars on core biopsy
Babu et al. PB. 14. An analysis of subtle alterations in reading pattern with the introduction of digital mammography screening: South East Scotland Breast Screening Programme
Rajan et al. PB. 26. MRI-guided breast biopsy in Leeds: 12 years' experience
Morgan et al. Efficacy of second-time vacuum-assisted breast excision in the management of screen-detected high-risk breast lesions
Newlands et al. PB. 38. Extent of agreement between radiological and pathological size and factors affecting completeness of excision in breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer
Teo et al. Preoperative assessment of breast volume to aid surgical planning: comparison of software-based mammographic measurements with subsequent mastectomy volumes
Healy et al. PB. 11. Modern management of acute breast abscesses: radiological interventions replacing surgical incisions?
Wotton et al. PB. 42. Influences upon presentation to the symptomatic breast clinic: is there an increase in symptomatic referrals due to the physical presence of the breast screening van within an area?
Babu et al. PB. 13. Impact on film reading of moving from analogue to digital screening: a service evaluation-South East Scotland Breast Screening Programme
Chen et al. Are abnormalities missed in the PERFORMS self-assessment scheme due to visual or cognitive factors?
Bundred et al. PB. 9. Randomised controlled trial of stereotactic 11G vacuum-assisted core biopsy for diagnosis and management of malignant microcalcification