Evaluation of an automated breast volume scanner according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS for breast ultrasound compared with hand-held ultrasound

Choi, Eun Jung; Choi, Hyemi; Park, Eun Hae; Song, Ji Soo; Youk, Ji Hyun

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.002

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the majority of the discordant cases involved a lower grading of the BI-RADS category by ABUS than by HHUS. Several studies have suggested that the mass size and the surrounding tissue change might affect the interpretation of malignant lesions on both types of examinations [15-17,22]. Our results demonstrated that US findings of an irregular shape on HHUS were associated with a lower BI-RADS category being assigned by ABUS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

“…ABUS detected small benign masses less frequently, but malignant masses were rarely missed [17]. Therefore, the overall diagnostic performance of ABUS was reported to be comparable to that of HHUS [12,15]. However, it has been reported that ABUS is inferior to HHUS in the detection of masses with an irregular shape or non-circumscribed margin, as well as those belonging to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 or 5 [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound examinations of suspicious breast masses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) examinations of suspicious breast masses in comparison to handheld breast ultrasound (HHUS) with regard to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category assessment, and to investigate the factors affecting discrepancies in categorization. Methods A total of 135 masses that were assessed as BI-RADS categories 4 and 5 on ABUS that underwent ultrasound (US)-guided core needle biopsy from May 2017 to December 2017 were included in this study. The BI-RADS categories were re-assessed using HHUS. Agreement of the BI-RADS categories was evaluated using kappa statistics, and the positive predictive value of each examination was calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the mammography and US findings associated with discrepancies in the BI-RADS categorization. Results The overall agreement between ABUS and HHUS in all cases was good (79.3%, kappa=0.61, P<0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that accompanying suspicious microcalcifications on mammography (odds ratio [OR], 4.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83 to 11.71; P=0.001) and an irregular shape on US (OR, 5.59; 95% CI, 1.43 to 21.83; P=0.013) were associated with discrepancies in the BI-RADS categorization. Conclusion The agreement between ABUS and HHUS examinations in the BI-RADS categorization of suspicious breast masses was good. The presence of suspicious microcalcifications on mammography and an irregular shape on US were factors associated with ABUS yielding a lower level of suspicion than HHUS in terms of the BI-RADS category assessment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound examinations of suspicious breast masses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Handheld ultrasound (HHUS) is a standard imaging modality of the breast; however, HHUS has several drawbacks, such as a long examination time and low rate of reproducibility [3][4][5]. Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) can overcome the shortcomings of HHUS [6][7][8] while maintaining diagnostic performance [9][10][11][12]. Furthermore, ABUS provides a wide field of view and coronal sections of the breast, which has the advantage of showing spiculated margins of breast cancer and architectural distortion [10,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

False-negative results on computer-aided detection software in preoperative automated breast ultrasonography of breast cancer patients

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epub ahead of printPurpose: The purpose of this study was to measure the cancer detection rate of computer-aided detection (CAD) software in preoperative automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) of breast cancer patients and to determine the characteristics associated with false-negative outcomes. Methods: A total of 129 index lesions (median size, 1.7 cm; interquartile range, 1.2 to 2.4 cm) from 129 consecutive patients (mean age±standard deviation, 53.4±11.8 years) who underwent preoperative ABUS from December 2017 to February 2018 were assessed. An index lesion was defined as a breast cancer confirmed by ultrasonography (US)-guided core needle biopsy. The detection rate of the index lesions, positive predictive value (PPV), and false-positive rate (FPR) of the CAD software were measured. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify clinical and US findings associated with false-negative outcomes. Results: The detection rate of the CAD software was 0.84 (109 of 129; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.90). The PPV and FPR were 0.41 (221 of 544; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.45) and 0.45 (174 of 387; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.50), respectively. False-negative outcomes were more frequent in asymptomatic patients (P<0.001) and were associated with the following US findings: smaller size (P=0.001), depth in the posterior third (P=0.002), angular or indistinct margin (P<0.001), and absence of architectural distortion (P<0.001). Conclusion: The CAD software showed a promising detection rate of breast cancer. However, radiologists should judge whether CAD software-marked lesions are true-or false-positive lesions, considering its low PPV and high FPR. Moreover, it would be helpful for radiologists to consider the characteristics associated with false-negative outcomes when reading ABUS with CAD.

show abstract

“…In breast ultrasound, the description of breast lesions is based on their sonographic features, and lesions are classi ed according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [11]. Most publications on the agreement of breast lesion description and BI-RADS classi cation are based on retrospective analysis of static images [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. We are aware of only two studies [26,27] that address the agreement of real time scanning of the same lesion between different examiners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement in Breast Lesion Assessment and Final BI-RADS Classification Between Radial and Meander-Like Breast Ultrasound

Brasier-Lutz¹,

Jäggi-Wickes

Schaedelin

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study prospectively investigates the agreement between radial (r-US) and meander-like (m-US) breast ultrasound with regard to lesion location, lesion size, morphological characteristics and final BI-RADS classification of individual breast lesions. Methods: Each patient of a consecutive, unselected, mixed collective received a dual ultrasound examination. Results: The agreement between r-US and m-US for lesion location ranged from good (lesion to mammilla distance ICC 0.64; lesion to skin distance ICC 0.72) to substantial (clock-face localization κ 0.70). For lesion size the agreement was good (diameter ICC 0.72; volume ICC 0.69), for lesion margin and architectural distortion it was substantial (κ 0.68 and 0.70, respectively). Most importantly, there was a substantial agreement (κ 0.76) in the final BI-RADS classification between r-US and m-US.Conclusions: Our recent comparison of radial and meander-like breast US revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of the two scanning methods was comparable. In this study, we observe a high degree of agreement between m-US and r-US for the lesion description (location, size, morphology) and final BI-RADS classification. These findings corroborate that r-US is a suitable alternative to m-US in daily clinical practice.Trial registration: NCT02358837. Registered January 2015, retrospectively registeredhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02358837&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=

show abstract

Evaluation of an automated breast volume scanner according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS for breast ultrasound compared with hand-held ultrasound

Cited by 29 publications

References 28 publications

Reliability of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound examinations of suspicious breast masses

Reliability of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound examinations of suspicious breast masses

False-negative results on computer-aided detection software in preoperative automated breast ultrasonography of breast cancer patients

Agreement in Breast Lesion Assessment and Final BI-RADS Classification Between Radial and Meander-Like Breast Ultrasound

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About