BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in the detection of breast cancer in a large population group with a long-term follow-up, and to investigate whether different ultrasound systems may influence the estimation of cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. From September 2010 to August 2011, a total of 1,866 ABVS and 3,700 HHUS participants, who underwent these procedures at our institute, were included in this study. Cancers occurring during the study and subsequent follow-up were evaluated. The reference standard was a combination of histology and follow-up imaging (≥12 months). The recall rate, cancer detection yield, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated with exact 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The recall rate was 2.57 per 1,000 (48/1,866) for ABVS and 3.57 per 1,000 (132/3,700) for HHUS, with ? significant difference (p=0.048). The cancer detection yield was 3.8 per 1,000 for ABVS and 2.7 per 1,000 for HHUS. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.7% for ABVS and 96.5% for HHUS with statistical significance (p=0.018). The specificity of ABVS and HHUS were 97.8%, 96.7%, respectively (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: ABVS shows a comparable diagnostic performance to HHUS. ABVS is an effective supplemental tool for mammography in breast cancer detection in a large population.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in the detection of breast cancer in a large population group with a long-term follow-up, and to investigate whether different ultrasound systems may influence the estimation of cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. From September 2010 to August 2011, a total of 1,866 ABVS and 3,700 HHUS participants, who underwent these procedures at our institute, were included in this study. Cancers occurring during the study and subsequent follow-up were evaluated. The reference standard was a combination of histology and follow-up imaging (≥12 months). The recall rate, cancer detection yield, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated with exact 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The recall rate was 2.57 per 1,000 (48/1,866) for ABVS and 3.57 per 1,000 (132/3,700) for HHUS, with ? significant difference (p=0.048). The cancer detection yield was 3.8 per 1,000 for ABVS and 2.7 per 1,000 for HHUS. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.7% for ABVS and 96.5% for HHUS with statistical significance (p=0.018). The specificity of ABVS and HHUS were 97.8%, 96.7%, respectively (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: ABVS shows a comparable diagnostic performance to HHUS. ABVS is an effective supplemental tool for mammography in breast cancer detection in a large population.
Authors: Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchel M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Fouzaan Zafar; Oliver D Kripfgans; Kai Thomenius; Paul L Carson Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Rupali Sood; Anne F Rositch; Delaram Shakoor; Emily Ambinder; Kara-Lee Pool; Erica Pollack; Daniel J Mollura; Lisa A Mullen; Susan C Harvey Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2019-08
Authors: Bo Ra Kwon; Jung Min Chang; Soo Yeon Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Soo Yeon Kim; So Min Lee; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Shahad A Ibraheem; Rozi Mahmud; Suraini Mohamad Saini; Hasyma Abu Hassan; Aysar Sabah Keiteb; Ahmed M Dirie Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-19
Authors: Jan C M van Zelst; Tao Tan; Paola Clauser; Angels Domingo; Monique D Dorrius; Daniel Drieling; Michael Golatta; Francisca Gras; Mathijn de Jong; Ruud Pijnappel; Matthieu J C M Rutten; Nico Karssemeijer; Ritse M Mann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 5.315