Advertisement

Comparison of 3D-Automated Breast Ultrasound With Handheld Breast Ultrasound Regarding Detection and BI-RADS Characterization of Lesions in Dense Breasts: A Study of 592 Cases

Published:December 23, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2021.11.022

      Rationale and Objective

      We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of an automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in the detection and characterization of lesions regarding BI-RADS classification in women with dense breasts.

      Materials and Methods

      After ethical approval, from July 2017 to August 2019, 592 consecutive patients were enrolled in this prospective study. On the same day, patients underwent ABUS followed by HHUS. Three breast radiologists participated in this study. The number and type of lesions and BI-RADS categorization of both ABUS and HHUS examinations of each patient were recorded in an excel file. The level of agreement between the two ultrasound systems in terms of lesion number and BI-RADS category were analyzed statistically.

      Results

      ABUS and HHUS detected 1005 and 1491 cystic and 270 and 336 mass lesions in 592 patients respectively. ABUS and HHUS detected 171 and 167 positive/suspicious cases (BIRADS 0/3/4/5). Forty suspicious lesions underwent core needle biopsy whereas 11 malignant lesions were detected by both methods. The remaining lesions were followed with a mean of 31 months. The mean size of solid lesions detected by HHUS and ABUS was 7.67 mm (range 2.1-41 mm) and 7.74 mm (range 2-42 mm) respectively. The agreement for detection of cystic lesions between two methods for each breast was good (kappa: 0.61-0.62 p < 0.001). The agreement of two methods for solid mass lesions for each breast was moderate (k = 0.57-0.60 p < 0.001). There was good agreement between the two methods for detecting suspicious lesions (kappa = 0.66 p < 0.001).

      Conclusion

      The level of agreement of ABUS and HHUS for dichotomic assignment of BIRADS categories was good. Although ABUS detected fewer lesions compared to HHUS, both methods detected all malignant lesions. ABUS is a reliable method for the detection of malignancy in dense breasts.

      Key Words

      Abbreviations:

      ABUS (Automated Breast Ultrasound System), HHUS (Hand-held Ultrasound), BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System), 3D (Three dimensional)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Freer PE
        Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening.
        Radiographics. 2015; 35: 302-315
        • McCormack VA
        • dos Santos Silva I
        Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006; 15: 1159-1169
        • Corsetti V
        • Houssami N
        • Ghirardi M
        • et al.
        Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1-year follow-up.
        Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47: 1021-1026
        • Berg WA
        • Zhang Z
        • Lehrer D
        • et al.
        Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.
        JAMA. 2012; 307: 1394-1404
        • Lenkinski RE.
        Improving the accuracy of screening dense breasted women for breast cancer by combining clinically based risk assessment models with ultrasound imaging.
        Acad Radiol. 2021; S1076-6332: 00433-00435https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2021.09.019
        • Van Zelst JC
        • Platel B
        • Karssemeijer N
        • et al.
        Multi-planar reconstructions of 3D automated breast ultrasound improve lesion differentiation by radiologists.
        Acad Radiol. 2015; 22: 1489—96
        • Brem RF
        • Tabár L
        • Duffy SW
        • et al.
        Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight study.
        Radiology. 2015; 274: 663-673
        • Girometti R
        • Zanotel M
        • Londero V
        • et al.
        Comparison between automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) versus hand-held ultrasound as a second look procedure after magnetic resonance imaging.
        Eur Radiol. 2017; 27: 3767-3775https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4749-4
        • Wang X
        • Huo L
        • He Y
        • et al.
        Early prediction of pathological outcomes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients using automated breast ultrasound.
        Chin J Cancer Res. 2016; 28: 478-485
        • Wang HY
        • Jiang YX
        • Zhu QL
        • et al.
        Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations.
        Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81: 3190-3200
        • Sickles EA
        • D'Orsi CJ
        • Bassett LW
        • et al.
        ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas.
        Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • Depretto C
        • Liguori A
        • Primolevo A
        • Di Cosimo S
        • Cartia F
        • Ferranti C
        • Scaperrotta GP.
        Automated breast ultrasound compared to hand-held ultrasound in surveillance after breast-conserving surgery.
        Tumori. 2020; 300891620930278https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620930278
        • Jeh SK
        • Kim SH
        • Choi JJ
        • Jung SS
        • Choe BJ
        • Park S
        • Park MS
        Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions.
        Acta Radiol. 2016 Feb; 57: 162-169https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115574872
        • Grubstein A
        • Rapson Y
        • Gadiel I
        • Cohen M.
        Analysis of false-negative readings of automated breast ultrasound studies.
        J Clin Ultrasound. 2017; 45: 245-251https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22474
        • Xiao YM
        • Chen ZH
        • Zhou QC
        • et al.
        The efficacy of automated breast volume scanning over conventional ultrasonography among patients with breast lesions.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015; 131: 293-296
        • Vourtsis A
        • Kachulis A.
        The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women.
        Eur Radiol. 2018; 28: 592-601https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5011-9
        • Niu L
        • Bao L
        • Zhu L
        • Tan Y
        • Xu X
        • Shan Y
        • Liu J
        • Zhu Q
        • Jiang C
        • Shen Y.
        Diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses in asymptomatic women: a comparison study with handheld ultrasound.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Nov; 38: 2871-2880https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14991
        • Barr RG
        • DeVita R
        • Destounis S
        • et al.
        Agreement between an automated volume breast scanner and handheld ultrasound for diagnostic breast examinations.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2017; 36: 2087-2092
        • Yun G
        • Kim SM
        • Yun B
        • Ahn HS
        • Jang M
        Reliability of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound examinations of suspicious breast masses.
        Ultrasonography. 2019 Jul; 38: 264-271https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.18055
        • Kim H
        • Cha JH
        • Oh HY
        • et al.
        Comparison of conventional and automated breast volume ultrasound in the description and characterization of solid breast masses based on BI-RADS features.
        Breast Cancer. 2014; 21: 423-428
        • Jia M
        • Lin X
        • Zhou X
        • et al.
        Diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound and handheld ultrasound in women with dense breasts.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Jun; 181: 589-597https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05625-2
        • Lin X
        • Wang J
        • Han F
        • et al.
        Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound.
        Eur J Radiol. 2011; 81: 873-878
        • Zhang X
        • Chen J
        • Zhou Y
        • et al.
        Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound: a meta-analysis.
        Gland Surg. 2019; 8: 698-711https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2019.11.18
        • Tutar B
        • Esen Icten G
        • Guldogan N
        • et al.
        Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020; 301: 1257-1265https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w
        • Arleo EK
        • Saleh M
        • Ionescu D
        • et al.
        Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first-quarter experience.
        Clin Imaging. 2014; 38: 439-444