Carla Meeuwis
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Carla Meeuwis has a total of 12 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Arancha M. Fernandez Gallardo
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
1 shared publicationAxel Winkel
1 shared publicationCarla Boetes
1 shared publicationGerard Stapper
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
1 shared publicationJelle O. Barentsz
1 shared publicationJeroen Veltman
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 August 2011
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 79 (2) , 257-261
MRI-guided breast biopsy at 3T using a dedicated large core biopsy set: Feasibility and initial results
- 1 August 2011
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 79 (2) , 257-261
MRI-guided breast biopsy at 3T using a dedicated large core biopsy set: Feasibility and initial results
- Open Access
- 2 September 2009
- Published by Springer Nature in European Radiology
- Vol. 20 (3) , 522-528
Computer-aided detection (CAD) for breast MRI: evaluation of efficacy at 3.0 T
Objective The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3.0-T breast MRI interpretation using manual and fully automated kinetic analyses. Material and methods Manual MRI interpretation was done on an Advantage Workstation. Retrospectively, all examinations were processed with a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. CAD data sets were interpreted by two experienced breast radiologists and two residents. For each lesion automated analysis of enhancement kinetics was evaluated at 50% and 100% thresholds. Forty-nine malignant and 22 benign lesions were evaluated. Results Using threshold enhancement alone, the sensitivity and specificity of CAD were 97.9% and 86.4%, respectively, for the 50% threshold, and 97.9% and 90%, respectively, for the 100% threshold. Manual interpretation by two breast radiologists showed a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 68.8%. For the same two radiologists the mean sensitivity and specificity for CAD-based interpretation was 90.4% (not significant) and 81.3% (significant at p < 0.05), respectively. With one-way ANOVA no significant differences were found between the two breast radiologists and the two residents together, or between any two readers separately. Conclusion CAD-based analysis improved the specificity compared with manual analysis of enhancement. Automated analysis at 50% and 100% thresholds showed a high sensitivity and specificity for readers with varying levels of experience.
- 2 September 2009
- Published by Springer Nature in European Radiology
- Vol. 20 (3) , 522-528
Open AccessComputer-aided detection (CAD) for breast MRI: evaluation of efficacy at 3.0 T
Objective The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3.0-T breast MRI interpretation using manual and fully automated kinetic analyses. Material and methods Manual MRI interpretation was done on an Advantage Workstation. Retrospectively, all examinations were processed with a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. CAD data sets were interpreted by two experienced breast radiologists and two residents. For each lesion automated analysis of enhancement kinetics was evaluated at 50% and 100% thresholds. Forty-nine malignant and 22 benign lesions were evaluated. Results Using threshold enhancement alone, the sensitivity and specificity of CAD were 97.9% and 86.4%, respectively, for the 50% threshold, and 97.9% and 90%, respectively, for the 100% threshold. Manual interpretation by two breast radiologists showed a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 68.8%. For the same two radiologists the mean sensitivity and specificity for CAD-based interpretation was 90.4% (not significant) and 81.3% (significant at p < 0.05), respectively. With one-way ANOVA no significant differences were found between the two breast radiologists and the two residents together, or between any two readers separately. Conclusion CAD-based analysis improved the specificity compared with manual analysis of enhancement. Automated analysis at 50% and 100% thresholds showed a high sensitivity and specificity for readers with varying levels of experience.