Comparison of Automated Breast Ultrasound and Hand-Held Breast Ultrasound in the Screening of Dense Breasts

Abstract

Objective To compare hand-held breast ultrasound (HHBUS) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as screening tool for cancer. Methods A cross-sectional study in patients with mammographically dense breasts was conducted, and both HHBUS and ABUS were performed. Hand-held breast ultrasound was acquired by radiologists and ABUS by mammography technicians and analyzed by breast radiologists. We evaluated the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification of the exam and of the lesion, as well as the amount of time required to perform and read each exam. The statistical analysis employed was measures of central tendency and dispersion, frequencies, Student t test, and a univariate logistic regression, through the odds ratio and its respective 95% confidence interval, and with p < 0.05 considered of statistical significance. Results A total of 440 patients were evaluated. Regarding lesions, HHBUS detected 15 (7.7%) BI-RADS 2, 175 (89.3%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (3%) BI-RADS 4, with 3 being confirmed by biopsy as invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs), and 3 false-positives. Automated breast ultrasound identified 12 (12.9%) BI-RADS 2, 75 (80.7%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (6.4%) BI-RADS 4, including 3 lesions detected by HHBUS and confirmed as IDCs, in addition to 1 invasive lobular carcinoma and 2 high-risk lesions not detected by HHBUS. The amount of time required for the radiologist to read the ABUS was statistically inferior compared with the time required to read the HHBUS (p < 0.001). The overall concordance was 80.9%. A total of 219 lesions were detected, from those 70 lesions by both methods, 126 only by HHBUS (84.9% not suspicious by ABUS) and 23 only by ABUS. Conclusion Compared with HHBUS, ABUS allowed adequate sonographic study in supplemental screening for breast cancer in heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breasts.

The Automation of Breast Ultrasonography and the Medical Time Dedicated to the Method

“…The remaining 9 articles provided data for the composition of ►Charts 1, 2, and 3. 1,2,10,11,13,[17][18][19]21 ►Figure 1 summarizes these results in the PRISMA 2020 flowchart. 22…”

“…Considering the guiding question of this review, the medical time dedicated to the two methods of breast evaluation by ultrasound, we observed with the data from the studies included in this review that less medical time was spent on the automated method in most studies, but with few studies directly comparing both methods regarding the specific question of medical time dedicated to each one of them. 1 2 10 11 13 17 19 21 23…”

“…The difference between the means of the breast radiologists was analyzed for both methods using the t-Student test and was considered statistically significant ( p < 0.001). 11…”

“…Therefore, Philadelpho et al (2021) obtained data similar to those of Wilczek et al (2016) (Easy Study) and Jiang et al (2018), who also sampled low-risk populations for breast cancer. 11 13 18 21…”

“…Factors such as the learning curve of the automated method, the physicians' experience with each of the methods, the number of findings, the size of the breasts (since a greater amount of breast tissue may require acquisition of additional views in the automated method and represents greater tissue volume to be evaluated also in the conventional method), interfere in this measure of time in an already established way. 3 8 10 11…”