Constanze Schmachtenberg1, Thomas Fischer2, Bernd Hamm2, Ulrich Bick2. 1. Department of Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin 10117, Germany. Electronic address: constanze.schmachtenberg@charite.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin 10117, Germany.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) to that of handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) using breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with 39 examined breasts with at least one lesion visible in breast MRI underwent HHUS and ABVS. Detection rate, localization, maximum diameter, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for HHUS and ABVS. Lesion localization and maximum diameters based on HHUS and ABVS were compared to size measurement in MRI. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories based on each method were compared to the MRI diagnosis (malignant or benign) or, if available (21 cases), with the histologic diagnosis. RESULTS: MRI detected 72 lesions, ABVS 59 lesions, and HHUS 54 lesions. Malignancy was proven histopathologically in 15 cases. There was no significant difference between ABVS and HHUS in terms of sensitivity (93.3% vs. 100%), specificity (83.3% vs. 83.3%), diagnostic accuracy (87.2% vs. 89.7%), positive predictive value (77.8% vs. 78.9%), and negative predictive value (95.2% vs. 100%). Agreement regarding lesion localization (same quadrant) was 94.3% for ABVS and MRI and 91.2% for HHUS and MRI. Lesion size compared to MRI lesion size was assessed correctly (+/- 3 mm) in 79.4% (HHUS) and 80% (ABVS). The correlation of size measurement was slightly higher for ABVS-MRI (r = 0.89) than for HHUS-MRI (r = 0.82) with P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: ABVS can be used as an alternative to HHUS. ABVS has the advantage of operator independence and better reproducibility although it is limited in evaluating axillary lymph nodes and lacks Doppler or elastrography capabilities, which sometimes provide important supplementary information in HHUS.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) to that of handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) using breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with 39 examined breasts with at least one lesion visible in breast MRI underwent HHUS and ABVS. Detection rate, localization, maximum diameter, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for HHUS and ABVS. Lesion localization and maximum diameters based on HHUS and ABVS were compared to size measurement in MRI. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories based on each method were compared to the MRI diagnosis (malignant or benign) or, if available (21 cases), with the histologic diagnosis. RESULTS: MRI detected 72 lesions, ABVS 59 lesions, and HHUS 54 lesions. Malignancy was proven histopathologically in 15 cases. There was no significant difference between ABVS and HHUS in terms of sensitivity (93.3% vs. 100%), specificity (83.3% vs. 83.3%), diagnostic accuracy (87.2% vs. 89.7%), positive predictive value (77.8% vs. 78.9%), and negative predictive value (95.2% vs. 100%). Agreement regarding lesion localization (same quadrant) was 94.3% for ABVS and MRI and 91.2% for HHUS and MRI. Lesion size compared to MRI lesion size was assessed correctly (+/- 3 mm) in 79.4% (HHUS) and 80% (ABVS). The correlation of size measurement was slightly higher for ABVS-MRI (r = 0.89) than for HHUS-MRI (r = 0.82) with P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: ABVS can be used as an alternative to HHUS. ABVS has the advantage of operator independence and better reproducibility although it is limited in evaluating axillary lymph nodes and lacks Doppler or elastrography capabilities, which sometimes provide important supplementary information in HHUS.
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: Anna D'Angelo; Gianluca Gatta; Graziella Di Grezia; Sara Mercogliano; Francesca Ferrara; Charlotte Marguerite Lucille Trombadori; Antonio Franco; Alessandro Cina; Paolo Belli; Riccardo Manfredi Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-08-12