Rossano Girometti1, Martina Zanotel2, Viviana Londero1, Massimo Bazzocchi1, Chiara Zuiani1. 1. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, 'S. Maria della Misericordia', Udine, Italy. 2. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, 'S. Maria della Misericordia', Udine, Italy. martina.zanotel@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the agreement between automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) and conventional ultrasound (US) as a second-look (SL) tool for assessing additional findings found on MRI. METHODS: Over a 7-month period, we prospectively assigned to SL-US and SL-ABVS all patients undergoing 1.5 T breast MRI in whom additional findings were found. Five experienced breast radiologists independently interpreted SL-US and SL-ABVS in blinded sessions to evaluate the detection rate of MRI findings and assign them to BI-RADS categories. We calculated the agreement between the two methods in assessing MRI findings as significant (BI-RADS 3-5) versus not significant (BI-RADS 1-2), as well as their cancer detection rate. RESULTS: In a population of 131 patients, SL-ABVS and SL-US showed a comparable detection rate of MRI findings (69.3 vs. 71.5%) (p > 0.05; McNemar test), with an almost perfect agreement in assessing them as significant or not (k = 0.94). This translated into a comparably high cancer detection rate (83.8% for SL-ABVS vs. 87.0% for SL-US). Only 1/31 cancers was missed by SL-ABVS. CONCLUSIONS: SL-ABVS and SL-US are nearly equivalent in assessing the significance of MRI findings, leading to a comparable cancer detection rate. SL-ABVS has the potential to replace SL-US in the SL scenario. KEY POINTS: • SL-ABVS shows almost perfect agreement with SL-US in assessing MRI findings. • SL-ABVS shows a comparably high cancer detection rate with respect to SL-US. • SL-ABVS has the potential to replace SL-US in evaluating additional MRI findings.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the agreement between automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) and conventional ultrasound (US) as a second-look (SL) tool for assessing additional findings found on MRI. METHODS: Over a 7-month period, we prospectively assigned to SL-US and SL-ABVS all patients undergoing 1.5 T breast MRI in whom additional findings were found. Five experienced breast radiologists independently interpreted SL-US and SL-ABVS in blinded sessions to evaluate the detection rate of MRI findings and assign them to BI-RADS categories. We calculated the agreement between the two methods in assessing MRI findings as significant (BI-RADS 3-5) versus not significant (BI-RADS 1-2), as well as their cancer detection rate. RESULTS: In a population of 131 patients, SL-ABVS and SL-US showed a comparable detection rate of MRI findings (69.3 vs. 71.5%) (p > 0.05; McNemar test), with an almost perfect agreement in assessing them as significant or not (k = 0.94). This translated into a comparably high cancer detection rate (83.8% for SL-ABVS vs. 87.0% for SL-US). Only 1/31 cancers was missed by SL-ABVS. CONCLUSIONS: SL-ABVS and SL-US are nearly equivalent in assessing the significance of MRI findings, leading to a comparable cancer detection rate. SL-ABVS has the potential to replace SL-US in the SL scenario. KEY POINTS: • SL-ABVS shows almost perfect agreement with SL-US in assessing MRI findings. • SL-ABVS shows a comparably high cancer detection rate with respect to SL-US. • SL-ABVS has the potential to replace SL-US in evaluating additional MRI findings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automated breast volume scanner; Breast cancer; Breast ultrasound; Magnetic resonance imaging; Second-look
Authors: Márcia M Aracava; Rubens Chojniak; Juliana A Souza; Almir G V Bitencourt; Elvira F Marques Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-01-04 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Sandra B Brennan; Janice S Sung; D David Dershaw; Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Boetes; R D Mus; R Holland; J O Barentsz; S P Strijk; T Wobbes; J H Hendriks; S H Ruys Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bo Ra Kwon; Jung Min Chang; Soo Yeon Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Sung Ui Shin; Ann Yi; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 3.500