PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to investigate the visualization rate for the mammary gland under the nipple with automated breast ultrasonography (US) and to compare the detectability of breast lesions under the nipple with automated breast imaging and handheld US imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients underwent automated breast US (ABVS; Siemens Medical Solutions, Mountain View, CA, USA) and handheld US. The scans of the four segments of the breast included sequential scans in the upper-outer (C), lower-outer (D), lower-inner (B), and upper-inner (A) regions. RESULTS: The visualization rates for the mammary gland under the nipple were 72% (86/120 breasts) in A-scanning, 84% (101/120) in B-scanning, 78% (93/120) in C-scanning, and 80% (96/120) in D-scanning. Interscanning mode differences were statistically significant only for A-scanning and B-scanning (P = 0.02). Eventually, 98% (117/120 breasts) of the breasts examined were rated as "visualized." In 14 of the 15 patients with breast lesions under the nipple, the lesions were detectable with handheld US and the ABVS. In the other patient, the lesion was not detectable on handheld US but was detected on ABVS imaging. CONCLUSION: ABVS imaging is by no means inferior to handheld US for detecting breast lesions under the nipple.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to investigate the visualization rate for the mammary gland under the nipple with automated breast ultrasonography (US) and to compare the detectability of breast lesions under the nipple with automated breast imaging and handheld US imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients underwent automated breast US (ABVS; Siemens Medical Solutions, Mountain View, CA, USA) and handheld US. The scans of the four segments of the breast included sequential scans in the upper-outer (C), lower-outer (D), lower-inner (B), and upper-inner (A) regions. RESULTS: The visualization rates for the mammary gland under the nipple were 72% (86/120 breasts) in A-scanning, 84% (101/120) in B-scanning, 78% (93/120) in C-scanning, and 80% (96/120) in D-scanning. Interscanning mode differences were statistically significant only for A-scanning and B-scanning (P = 0.02). Eventually, 98% (117/120 breasts) of the breasts examined were rated as "visualized." In 14 of the 15 patients with breast lesions under the nipple, the lesions were detectable with handheld US and the ABVS. In the other patient, the lesion was not detectable on handheld US but was detected on ABVS imaging. CONCLUSION: ABVS imaging is by no means inferior to handheld US for detecting breast lesions under the nipple.
Authors: K Flobbe; P J Nelemans; A G H Kessels; G L Beets; M F von Meyenfeldt; J M A van Engelshoven Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: D O Cosgrove; R P Kedar; J C Bamber; B al-Murrani; J B Davey; C Fisher; J A McKinna; W E Svensson; E Tohno; E Vagios Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sebastian Wojcinski; Samuel Gyapong; André Farrokh; Philipp Soergel; Peter Hillemanns; Friedrich Degenhardt Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 1.930