Elizabeth Kagan Arleo1, Marwa Saleh2, Dana Ionescu2, Michele Drotman2, Robert J Min2, Keith Hentel2. 1. New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical College, 425 East 61st Street, 9th floor, New York, NY 10128. Electronic address: ela9033@med.cornell.edu. 2. New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical College, 425 East 61st Street, 9th floor, New York, NY 10128.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts (BI-RADS density classification 3 or 4 on mammogram). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, at the end of the "first quarter" (August-October 2013) of use, our practice database was searched for all ABVS examinations performed and specifically, the positive examinations (defined as abnormal/BI-RADS 0) for which patients were recalled for additional imaging evaluation with handheld ultrasound (HHUS); the latter group was reviewed with respect to final BI-RADS and pathology if relevant. RESULTS: During the 3-month study time period, 558 ABVS studies were performed: 453 (81%) were initially BI-RADS 1 or 2 and 105 (19%) were BI-RADS 0-incomplete and recalled, corresponding with an overall recall rate of 19%; specifically, the recall rate trended down from 24.7% in August to 12.6% in October. To date, 98 of the 105 recalled women have returned for HHUS, with the resultant final BI-RADS as follows: 25/98=25% BI-RADS 1, 46/98=47% BI-RADS 2, 13/98=13% BI-RADS 3, 14/98=15% BI-RADS 4, and 0/98=0% BI-RADS 5. All biopsies performed to date of the ABVS-detected BI-RADS 4 lesions have yielded benign results, with the most common pathology being fibroadenoma. CONCLUSION: The recall rate of screening ABVS in women with dense breasts at our institution was under 20% overall during its first quarter of use, and trended down from nearly 25% in the first month to under 13% in the third. The clinical implication is that ABVS does have a learning curve, but that is a potentially feasible way to meet the increasing demands for screening ultrasound in women with dense breasts.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts (BI-RADS density classification 3 or 4 on mammogram). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, at the end of the "first quarter" (August-October 2013) of use, our practice database was searched for all ABVS examinations performed and specifically, the positive examinations (defined as abnormal/BI-RADS 0) for which patients were recalled for additional imaging evaluation with handheld ultrasound (HHUS); the latter group was reviewed with respect to final BI-RADS and pathology if relevant. RESULTS: During the 3-month study time period, 558 ABVS studies were performed: 453 (81%) were initially BI-RADS 1 or 2 and 105 (19%) were BI-RADS 0-incomplete and recalled, corresponding with an overall recall rate of 19%; specifically, the recall rate trended down from 24.7% in August to 12.6% in October. To date, 98 of the 105 recalled women have returned for HHUS, with the resultant final BI-RADS as follows: 25/98=25% BI-RADS 1, 46/98=47% BI-RADS 2, 13/98=13% BI-RADS 3, 14/98=15% BI-RADS 4, and 0/98=0% BI-RADS 5. All biopsies performed to date of the ABVS-detected BI-RADS 4 lesions have yielded benign results, with the most common pathology being fibroadenoma. CONCLUSION: The recall rate of screening ABVS in women with dense breasts at our institution was under 20% overall during its first quarter of use, and trended down from nearly 25% in the first month to under 13% in the third. The clinical implication is that ABVS does have a learning curve, but that is a potentially feasible way to meet the increasing demands for screening ultrasound in women with dense breasts.
Authors: Julia Schwaab; Yago Diez; Arnau Oliver; Robert Martí; Jan van Zelst; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Ahmed Bensouda Mourri; Johannes Gregori; Matthias Günther Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-04-25
Authors: Christopher L Vaughan; Tania S Douglas; Qonita Said-Hartley; Roland V Baasch; James A Boonzaier; Brian C Goemans; John Harverson; Michael W Mingay; Shuaib Omar; Raphael V Smith; Nielen C Venter; Heidi S Wilson Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Andrew Evans; Rubina M Trimboli; Alexandra Athanasiou; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Julia Camps Herrero; Paola Clauser; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Eva M Fallenberg; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Karen Kinkel; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Christiane K Kuhl; Ritse M Mann; Laura Martincich; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Sophia Zackrisson; Gabor Forrai; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2018-08-09