PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate the diagnostic potential of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) and compare it with manual ultrasound (US) and mammography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-five patients with a total of 165 breast lesions had mammograms, manual US and an ABVS. Multiplanar reconstructions in coronal, transverse and sagittal views were reconstructed from the automated data set. After biopsy or surgery, all lesions were confirmed histologically. Data were evaluated according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Detection rate, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of each method were analysed. RESULTS: Detection rate, diagnostic accuracy and mammography sensitivity were significantly lower than those of each US method (p<0.05). There were no significant differences between manual US and ABVS. When combining ABVS, US and mammography, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity reached 96.4%, 97.1% and 95.2%, respectively. A spiculated and stellate margin in the coronal plane has a high specificity in diagnosing malignant lesions. CONCLUSIONS: ABVS can provide additional information in the differential diagnosis of a lesion. It has significantly higher sensitivity than mammography, but it is similar to manual US and cannot be preferred to a manual US examination.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate the diagnostic potential of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) and compare it with manual ultrasound (US) and mammography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-five patients with a total of 165 breast lesions had mammograms, manual US and an ABVS. Multiplanar reconstructions in coronal, transverse and sagittal views were reconstructed from the automated data set. After biopsy or surgery, all lesions were confirmed histologically. Data were evaluated according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Detection rate, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of each method were analysed. RESULTS: Detection rate, diagnostic accuracy and mammography sensitivity were significantly lower than those of each US method (p<0.05). There were no significant differences between manual US and ABVS. When combining ABVS, US and mammography, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity reached 96.4%, 97.1% and 95.2%, respectively. A spiculated and stellate margin in the coronal plane has a high specificity in diagnosing malignant lesions. CONCLUSIONS: ABVS can provide additional information in the differential diagnosis of a lesion. It has significantly higher sensitivity than mammography, but it is similar to manual US and cannot be preferred to a manual US examination.
Authors: D O Watermann; M Földi; A Hanjalic-Beck; A Hasenburg; A Lüghausen; H Prömpeler; G Gitsch; E Stickeler Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: T R Nelson; D H Pretorius; A Lev-Toaff; G Bega; N E Budorick; K A Hollenbach; L Needleman Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 2.153
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
Authors: Ruediger Mueller; Mathias Grunke; Jörg Wendler; Florian Schuch; Karina Hofmann-Preiss; Ina Boettger; Rüdiger Jakobs; Hendrik Schulze-Koops; Johannes von Kempis Journal: Ultrasound Int Open Date: 2018-07-11