Xi Lin1, Mengmeng Jia2, Xiang Zhou3, Lingyun Bao4, Yaqing Chen5, Peifang Liu6, Ruimei Feng7, Xi Zhang8, Luoxi Zhu4, Hui Wang5, Ying Zhu6, Guoxue Tang9, Wenqi Feng10, Anhua Li11, Youlin Qiao12,13. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China. 2. Department of Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. 3. Department of Interventional Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. 4. Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310006, China. 5. Department of Ultrasound, Xin Hua Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200092, China. 6. Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China. 7. Department of Cancer Prevention Research, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China. 8. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Beijing Office for Cancer Prevention and Control, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China. 9. Department of Ultrasound, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, China. 10. Department of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. 11. Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China. liah@sysucc.org.cn. 12. Department of Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. qiaoy@cicams.ac.cn. 13. School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. qiaoy@cicams.ac.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for breast cancer by comparing it to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG). METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted between February 2016 and March 2017 in five tertiary hospitals in China, and 1922 women aged 30-69 years old were recruited. Women aged 30-39 years (group A) underwent ABUS and HHUS, and women aged 40-69 (group B) underwent additional MG. Images were interpreted using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). All BI-RADS 4 and 5 cases were confirmed pathologically. Sensitivities and specificities of all modalities were compared. RESULTS: There were 83 cancers in 677 women in group A and 321 cancers in 1245 women in group B. In the whole study population, the sensitivities of ABUS and HHUS were 92.8% (375/404) and 96.3% (389/404), and the specificities were 93.0% (1411/1518) and 89.6% (1360/1518), respectively. ABUS had a significantly higher specificity to HHUS (p < 0.01), while HHUS had higher sensitivity (p = 0.01). In group B, the sensitivities of ABUS, HHUS, and MG were 93.5% (300/321), 96.6% (310/321), and 87.9% (282/321). The specificities were 93.0% (859/924), 89.9% (831/924), and 91.6% (846/924). ABUS had significantly higher sensitivity (p = 0.02) and comparable specificity compared with MG (p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: ABUS increased sensitivity and had similar specificity compared with mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Additionally, ABUS has comparable performance to HHUS in women aged 30-69 years old. ABUS or HHUS is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • In breast cancer diagnosis settings, automated breast ultrasound has a higher cancer detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity than mammography, especially in women with dense breasts. • Compared with handheld ultrasound, automated breast ultrasound has higher specificity, lower sensitivity, and comparable diagnostic performance. • Automated breast ultrasound is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis, and may have a potential indication for its further use in the breast cancer early detection.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for breast cancer by comparing it to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG). METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted between February 2016 and March 2017 in five tertiary hospitals in China, and 1922 women aged 30-69 years old were recruited. Women aged 30-39 years (group A) underwent ABUS and HHUS, and women aged 40-69 (group B) underwent additional MG. Images were interpreted using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). All BI-RADS 4 and 5 cases were confirmed pathologically. Sensitivities and specificities of all modalities were compared. RESULTS: There were 83 cancers in 677 women in group A and 321 cancers in 1245 women in group B. In the whole study population, the sensitivities of ABUS and HHUS were 92.8% (375/404) and 96.3% (389/404), and the specificities were 93.0% (1411/1518) and 89.6% (1360/1518), respectively. ABUS had a significantly higher specificity to HHUS (p < 0.01), while HHUS had higher sensitivity (p = 0.01). In group B, the sensitivities of ABUS, HHUS, and MG were 93.5% (300/321), 96.6% (310/321), and 87.9% (282/321). The specificities were 93.0% (859/924), 89.9% (831/924), and 91.6% (846/924). ABUS had significantly higher sensitivity (p = 0.02) and comparable specificity compared with MG (p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: ABUS increased sensitivity and had similar specificity compared with mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Additionally, ABUS has comparable performance to HHUS in women aged 30-69 years old. ABUS or HHUS is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • In breast cancer diagnosis settings, automated breast ultrasound has a higher cancer detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity than mammography, especially in women with dense breasts. • Compared with handheld ultrasound, automated breast ultrasound has higher specificity, lower sensitivity, and comparable diagnostic performance. • Automated breast ultrasound is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis, and may have a potential indication for its further use in the breast cancer early detection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast ultrasound; Diagnostic performance; Mammography
Authors: Qi Wei; Yu-Jing Yan; Ge-Ge Wu; Xi-Rong Ye; Fan Jiang; Jie Liu; Gang Wang; Yi Wang; Juan Song; Zhi-Ping Pan; Jin-Hua Hu; Chao-Ying Jin; Xiang Wang; Christoph F Dietrich; Xin-Wu Cui Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Xi Zhang; Lei Yang; Shuo Liu; Huichao Li; Qingyu Li; Yangyang Cheng; Ning Wang; Jiafu Ji Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 6.244