Literature DB >> 29556766

Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?

Sergio J Sanabria1, Orcun Goksel1, Katharina Martini2, Serafino Forte3, Thomas Frauenfelder2, Rahel A Kubik-Huch3, Marga B Rominger4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of a novel hand-held ultrasound (US) method for breast density assessment that measures the speed of sound (SoS), in comparison to the ACR mammographic (MG) categories.
METHODS: ACR-MG density (a=fatty to d=extremely dense) and SoS-US were assessed in the retromamillary, inner and outer segments of 106 women by two radiographers. A conventional US system was used for SoS-US. A reflector served as timing reference for US signals transmitted through the breasts. Four blinded readers assessed average SoS (m/s), ΔSoS (segment-variation SoS; m/s) and the ACR-MG density. The highest SoS and ΔSoS values of the three segments were used for MG-ACR whole breast comparison.
RESULTS: SoS-US breasts were examined in <2 min. Mean SoS values of densities a-d were 1,421 m/s (SD 14), 1,432 m/s (SD 17), 1,448 m/s (SD 20) and 1,500 m/s (SD 31), with significant differences between all groups (p<0.001). The SoS-US comfort scores and inter-reader agreement were significantly better than those for MG (1.05 vs. 2.05 and 0.982 vs. 0.774; respectively). A strong segment correlation between SoS and ACR-MG breast density was evident (rs=0.622, p=<0.001) and increased for full breast classification (rs=0.746, p=<0.001). SoS-US allowed diagnosis of dense breasts (ACR c and d) with sensitivity 86.2 %, specificity 85.2 % and AUC 0.887.
CONCLUSIONS: Using hand-held SoS-US, radiographers measured breast density without discomfort, readers evaluated measurements with high inter-reader agreement, and SoS-US correlated significantly with ACR-MG breast-density categories. KEY POINTS: • The novel speed-of-sound ultrasound correlated significantly with mammographic ACR breast density categories. • Radiographers measured breast density without women discomfort or radiation. • SoS-US can be implemented on a standard US machine. • SoS-US shows potential for a quantifiable, cost-effective assessment of breast density.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast; Breast density; Breast neoplasms; Mammography; Ultrasonography

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29556766     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5287-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  37 in total

1.  Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation.

Authors:  Taghreed I Alshafeiy; Antoine Wadih; Brandi T Nicholson; Carrie M Rochman; Heather R Peppard; James T Patrie; Jennifer A Harvey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Differentiation of BIRADS-4 small breast lesions via Multimodal Ultrasound Tomography.

Authors:  G Zografos; P Liakou; D Koulocheri; I Liovarou; M Sofras; S Hadjiagapis; M Orme; V Marmarelis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.

Authors:  Abid Irshad; Rebecca Leddy; Susan Ackerman; Abbie Cluver; Dag Pavic; Ahad Abid; Madelene C Lewis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Ultrasonic velocity and attenuation in mammalian tissues.

Authors:  R C Chivers; R J Parry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Breast density measurements with ultrasound tomography: a comparison with film and digital mammography.

Authors:  Neb Duric; Norman Boyd; Peter Littrup; Mark Sak; Lukasz Myc; Cuiping Li; Erik West; Sal Minkin; Lisa Martin; Martin Yaffe; Steven Schmidt; Muhammad Faiz; Jason Shen; Olga Melnichouk; Qing Li; Teri Albrecht
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  The Connecticut Experiment; The Third Installment: 4 Years of Screening Women with Dense Breasts with Bilateral Ultrasound.

Authors:  Jean M Weigert
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Volumetric breast density evaluation from ultrasound tomography images.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography.

Authors:  Min Sun Bae; Woo Kyung Moon; Jung Min Chang; Hye Ryoung Koo; Won Hwa Kim; Nariya Cho; Ann Yi; Bo La Yun; Su Hyun Lee; Mi Young Kim; Eun Bi Ryu; Mirinae Seo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.

Authors:  Adam R Brentnall; Elaine F Harkness; Susan M Astley; Louise S Donnelly; Paula Stavrinos; Sarah Sampson; Lynne Fox; Jamie C Sergeant; Michelle N Harvie; Mary Wilson; Ursula Beetles; Soujanya Gadde; Yit Lim; Anil Jain; Sara Bundred; Nicola Barr; Valerie Reece; Anthony Howell; Jack Cuzick; D Gareth R Evans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 10.  Breast Density and Risk of Breast Cancer in Asian Women: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.

Authors:  Jong-Myon Bae; Eun Hee Kim
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2016-10-21
View more
  3 in total

1.  Sarcopenia: ultrasound today, smartphones tomorrow?

Authors:  Luca Maria Sconfienza
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Speed of sound ultrasound: a pilot study on a novel technique to identify sarcopenia in seniors.

Authors:  Sergio J Sanabria; Katharina Martini; Gregor Freystätter; Lisa Ruby; Orcun Goksel; Thomas Frauenfelder; Marga B Rominger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Mammography breast density: an effective supplemental modality for the precise grading of ultrasound BI-RADS 4 categories.

Authors:  Wei-Min Li; Qiu-Wei Sun; Xiao-Fang Fan; Jun-Chao Zhang; Ting Xu; Qi-Qi Shen; Lei Jia
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-06
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.