Simone Schiaffino1, Licia Gristina2, Simona Tosto3, Elena Massone2, Sara De Giorgis4, Alessandro Garlaschi3, Alberto Tagliafico2, Massimo Calabrese3. 1. Radiology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Piazza Edmondo Malan, 2, San Donato Milanese, MI, 20097, Italy. schiaffino.simone@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, Policlinico San Martino, 16132, Genoa, Italy. 4. University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to evaluate the value of automated breast ultrasound (AUS) in women with dense breast, in terms of reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement. The assessment of coronal images alone versus the complete multiplanar (MPR) views was evaluated. METHODS: Between August and October 2017, consecutive patients with dense breast that were referred to our Institute, for post-mammography ultrasound assessment, pre-operative assessment or follow-up of known benign lesions, were invited to undergo an additional study with AUS. Three radiologists, (5, 15 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging), reviewed the exams twice: first assessing reconstructed coronal images alone, second the complete MPR views. Reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight women were included, for a total of 67 breast lesions, 25 (37%) malignant and 42 (63%) benign. Compared to MPR, coronal view was associated with: lower reading times, respectively, for the three readers: 83 ± 37, 84 ± 43 and 76 ± 30 versus 163 ± 109, 131 ± 57, 151 ± 42 s (p < 0.035); lower sensitivity: 44.8%, 62.1%, 55.2% versus 69.0% (p = 0.059), 65.5% (p = 0.063), 72.4% (p = 0.076), respectively; better specificity: 94.1%, 93.7%, 94.2% versus 89.5% (p = 0.093), 87.4% (p = 0.002), 91.6% (p = 0.383), respectively. Agreement between the most and the least experienced reader was fair to moderate for categorical variables and significant for continuous ones. CONCLUSION: The coronal view allows significantly lower reading times, a valuable feature in the screening setting, but its diagnostic performance makes the complete multiplanar assessment mandatory.
BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to evaluate the value of automated breast ultrasound (AUS) in women with dense breast, in terms of reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement. The assessment of coronal images alone versus the complete multiplanar (MPR) views was evaluated. METHODS: Between August and October 2017, consecutive patients with dense breast that were referred to our Institute, for post-mammography ultrasound assessment, pre-operative assessment or follow-up of known benign lesions, were invited to undergo an additional study with AUS. Three radiologists, (5, 15 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging), reviewed the exams twice: first assessing reconstructed coronal images alone, second the complete MPR views. Reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight women were included, for a total of 67 breast lesions, 25 (37%) malignant and 42 (63%) benign. Compared to MPR, coronal view was associated with: lower reading times, respectively, for the three readers: 83 ± 37, 84 ± 43 and 76 ± 30 versus 163 ± 109, 131 ± 57, 151 ± 42 s (p < 0.035); lower sensitivity: 44.8%, 62.1%, 55.2% versus 69.0% (p = 0.059), 65.5% (p = 0.063), 72.4% (p = 0.076), respectively; better specificity: 94.1%, 93.7%, 94.2% versus 89.5% (p = 0.093), 87.4% (p = 0.002), 91.6% (p = 0.383), respectively. Agreement between the most and the least experienced reader was fair to moderate for categorical variables and significant for continuous ones. CONCLUSION: The coronal view allows significantly lower reading times, a valuable feature in the screening setting, but its diagnostic performance makes the complete multiplanar assessment mandatory.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automated breast ultrasound; Breast neoplasms; Mammary; Ultrasonography
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Chiara Scoccianti; Dana Loomis; Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa; Véronique Bouvard; Franca Bianchini; Kurt Straif Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rachel F Brem; László Tabár; Stephen W Duffy; Marc F Inciardi; Jessica A Guingrich; Beverly E Hashimoto; Marla R Lander; Robert L Lapidus; Mary Kay Peterson; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Susan Roux; Kathy J Schilling; Biren A Shah; Jessica Torrente; Ralph T Wynn; Dave P Miller Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391