Athina Vourtsis1, Aspasia Kachulis2. 1. 'Diagnostic Mammography' Medical Diagnostic Imaging Unit, Kifisias Ave 362, Chalandri, 15233, Athens, Greece. vourtsis@mammography.gr. 2. 'Diagnostic Mammography' Medical Diagnostic Imaging Unit, Kifisias Ave 362, Chalandri, 15233, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared to hand-held traditional ultrasound (HHUS) in the visualisation and BIRADS characterisation of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2017, 1,886 women with breast density category C or D (aged 48.6±10.8 years) were recruited. All participants underwent ABUS and HHUS examination; a subcohort of 1,665 women also underwent a mammography. RESULTS: The overall agreement between HHUS and ABUS was 99.8 %; kappa=0.994, p<0.0001. Two cases were graded as BI-RADS 1 in HHUS, but were graded as BIRADS 4 in ABUS; biopsy revealed a radial scar. Three carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 4 in ABUS; two additional carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS. Two carcinomas, appearing as a well-circumscribed mass or developing asymmetry in mammography, were graded as BI-RADS 4 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS. CONCLUSIONS: ABUS could be successfully used in the visualisation and characterisation of breast lesions. ABUS seemed to outperform HHUS in the detection of architectural distortion on the coronal plane and can supplement mammography in the detection of non-calcified carcinomas in women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • The new generation of ABUS yields comparable results to HHUS. • ABUS seems superior to HHUS in detecting architectural distortions. • In dense breasts, supplemental ABUS to mammography detects additional cancers.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared to hand-held traditional ultrasound (HHUS) in the visualisation and BIRADS characterisation of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2017, 1,886 women with breast density category C or D (aged 48.6±10.8 years) were recruited. All participants underwent ABUS and HHUS examination; a subcohort of 1,665 women also underwent a mammography. RESULTS: The overall agreement between HHUS and ABUS was 99.8 %; kappa=0.994, p<0.0001. Two cases were graded as BI-RADS 1 in HHUS, but were graded as BIRADS 4 in ABUS; biopsy revealed a radial scar. Three carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 4 in ABUS; two additional carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS. Two carcinomas, appearing as a well-circumscribed mass or developing asymmetry in mammography, were graded as BI-RADS 4 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS. CONCLUSIONS: ABUS could be successfully used in the visualisation and characterisation of breast lesions. ABUS seemed to outperform HHUS in the detection of architectural distortion on the coronal plane and can supplement mammography in the detection of non-calcified carcinomas in women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • The new generation of ABUS yields comparable results to HHUS. • ABUS seems superior to HHUS in detecting architectural distortions. • In dense breasts, supplemental ABUS to mammography detects additional cancers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automated breast ultrasound system; Breast cancer; Breast density; Breast ultrasonography; Digital mammography
Authors: John R Scheel; Janie M Lee; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Constance D Lehman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Michael Golatta; Christina Baggs; Mirjam Schweitzer-Martin; Christoph Domschke; Sarah Schott; Aba Harcos; Alexander Scharf; Hans Junkermann; Geraldine Rauch; Joachim Rom; Christof Sohn; Joerg Heil Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maryellen L Giger; Marc F Inciardi; Alexandra Edwards; John Papaioannou; Karen Drukker; Yulei Jiang; Rachel Brem; Jeremy Bancroft Brown Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Filip Šroubek; Michal Bartoš; Jan Schier; Zuzana Bílková; Barbara Zitová; Jan Vydra; Iva Macová; Jan Daneš; Lukáš Lambert Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Benedikt Schaefgen; Joerg Heil; Richard G Barr; Marcus Radicke; Aba Harcos; Christina Gomez; Anne Stieber; André Hennigs; Alexandra von Au; Julia Spratte; Geraldine Rauch; Joachim Rom; Florian Schütz; Christof Sohn; Michael Golatta Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Benedikt Schaefgen; Marija Juskic; Madeleine Hertel; Richard G Barr; Marcus Radicke; Anne Stieber; André Hennigs; Fabian Riedel; Christof Sohn; Joerg Heil; Michael Golatta Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 2.344