Assessing Improvement in Detection of Breast Cancer with Three-dimensional Automated Breast US in Women with Dense Breast Tissue: The SomoInsight Study

Brem, Rachel F.; Tabár, Làszló; Duffy, Stephen W.; Inciardi, Marc; Guingrich, Jessica A.; Hashimoto, Beverly E.; Lander, Marla R.; Lapidus, Robert L.; Peterson, Mary Kay; Rapelyea, Jocelyn A.; Roux, Susan; Schilling, Kathy; Shah, Biren A.; Torrente, Jessica; Wynn, Ralph; Miller, Dave P.

doi:10.1148/radiol.14132832

Cited by 288 publications

(234 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

207

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All systems have software to generate a cine loop of the images to be reviewed by the radiologist which can be read at time of completion or at a later time and date. Authors of the Somo-Insight multicenter study, assessed outcome measures using automated whole breast ultrasound and found an overall improvement in cancer detection rate of 1.9 per 1000 women screened, similar to prior single institution studies yet PPV was significantly reduced [56] (Figure 17, Tables 1 and 2). …”

Section: Screening Breast Ultrasoundsupporting

confidence: 67%

Breast Ultrasound Past, Present, and Future

Rapelyea¹,

Marks²

2018

Breast Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter will review the utilization of breast ultrasound for screening and diagnostic purposes. Currently, ultrasound is primarily used to investigate palpable lesions in women less than 30 years old, to provide further characterization of abnormal mammographic findings, and to guide invasive breast interventions. Innovations in ultrasound technology have improved the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Computer-aided detection (CAD), elastography, quantitative breast ultrasound technology, and ultrasound contrast agents (microbubbles) were developed to improve diagnostic accuracy. These advancements have the potential to impact overall survival by detecting cancers that are smaller and less aggressive.

show abstract

Section: Screening Breast Ultrasoundsupporting

confidence: 67%

Breast Ultrasound Past, Present, and Future

Rapelyea¹,

Marks²

2018

Breast Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Incremental cancer detection rate per thousand examinations of supplemental SAUS in larger studies varies between 1.9 and 7.7 at a median of 3.6 (Brem 1.9, Leifland 2.3, Kelly 3.6, Giuliano 7.7, Choi 3.8) (25)(26)(27)(28). Incremental biopsy rates of supplemental ABUS in heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts vary between 20 and 39 per thousand and showed an average of 36 per thousand in the large SomoInsight study (24)(25)(26)(27)(28).…”

Section: Facts On Sausmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Girardi and co-workers performed breast HHUS in 22,131 asymptomatic women with negative mammography and showed an overall US detection rate of 1.85 per thousand (41/22.131) over all grades of breast density, 2.21 per thousand (22/9960) in dense breasts vs 1.56 per thousand (19/12,171) in fatty breasts (21). Incremental cancer detection rate per thousand examinations of supplemental HHUS is calculated as the number of cancers detected by US only divided by the total number of examinations (25).…”

Section: Facts On Hhusmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Supine Automated Ultrasound (SAUS, ABUS, ABVS) for Supplemental Screening Women with Dense Breasts

Mundinger¹

2016

J Breasth Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The latest re-analysis of ACRIN 6666 data by Berg and co-workers 2016 showed that cancer detection rate with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections (1). Supplemental screening by HHUS in addition to mammography in women with dense breasts results in additional screen detected cancer rates between 1.8 and 4.6 per thousand examinations depending on the basic risk of the collectives (2). Three-dimensional supine automated ultrasound (SAUS) of the breast, also known as 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS; trademarks of General Electric company; Invenia and somo v * ABUS) or 3D automated breast volume scanning (ABVS, trademark of Siemens company; ACUSON S2000™ automated breast volume scanner), represents an innovative technology that has gained FDA approval for screening or early detection of breast cancer in women with dense breasts; claiming to find 35.7% more cancers in women with dense breasts than mammography alone (3, 4). Can ABUS/ABVS really catch up with HHUS and other supplementary imaging methods in screening women with dense breasts? What is the future of population-based supplemental imaging in women at intermediate risk? 3D supine automated ultrasound (SAUS: ABUS, ABVS) -what is it?In contrast to HHUS a mechanical arm links the ABUS or ABVS transducer with the computing system. Patients lie supine. A technician performs several automated standardized scanning tracks of both breasts at a predefined speed. The resulting three-dimensional data sets co-register the US echo information with the corresponding voxel positions within the breast volume. Finally a physician reads the data on a workstation similar to reading a CT or MRI examinations in multiple planes and reconstructions (5). Multiplanar reconstructions of 3D automated breast ultrasound have been shown to improve lesion differentiation by radiologists (6). Modern prone water bath systems operate on the principles of ultrasound tomography. They incorporate multiple sound characteristics of reflection, sound speed, and attenuation of transmission ultrasound that can be sampled by a circular array surrounding the breast. Currently clinical studies have been initiated. However, population-based trials do not exist to date (4). Advantages of 3D supine automated ultrasound (SAUS)Older versions of the 3D supine automated ultrasound technology have been shown to be inferior to HHUS (5, 7), however updated technology has overcome previous problems to a large degree (8, 9). The newest generation of ABUS (Invenia ABUS; trademark of GE) is faster, achieves a higher resolution and generates less coupling artefacts between the curved transducer and the curved surface of the breast compared to older systems with a plane transducer surface (5). Compared to HHUS, 3D supine automated ultrasound of the breast provides for better detection of architectural distortions and hyperechoic rim in the coronal plane (10, 11). The complete, non-selective documentation of th...

show abstract

“…A substudy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 trial demonstrated a supplemental cancer yield of 18.0 per 1,000 women screened with both MRI and mammography compared with mammography alone after 3 rounds of annual mammography and ultrasound screening (11). For comparison, supplemental cancer yield for screening breast ultrasound ranges from 1.9 to 4.4 per 1,000 women screened (12)(13)(14) and from 1.2 to 2.8 for digital breast tomosynthesis (15)(16)(17)(18). Thus, functional breast imaging approaches, including MRI and BSGI, as adjunct screening modalities outperform the anatomic-based tools of ultrasound and tomosynthesis.…”

Section: See Page 678mentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Imaging Approaches for Supplemental Screening in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk

Fowler¹

2016

J Nucl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mammography is an effective screening method that reduces breast cancer mortality (1). However, mammography is not a perfect test and its sensitivity is diminished in women with dense breast tissue (2). For women at increased breast cancer risk, the use of imaging modalities in addition to mammography, termed supplemental screening, can improve the overall cancer detection rate. Current guidelines recommend MRI for supplemental screening in women with greater than 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer (3). For women who cannot tolerate MRI, have mammographically dense breast tissue, or have an intermediate lifetime risk of breast cancer, screening ultrasound can be considered (3). However, these techniques have some drawbacks, which have fueled interest in alternative functional imaging-based methods for supplemental screening in high-risk women. In this issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Brem et al. investigate the diagnostic performance of a molecular imaging approach for supplemental breast cancer screening (4). See page 678Breast-specific g-imaging (BSGI) is a Food and Drug Administrationapproved radionuclide-based technique that can be used to detect breast cancer (5,6). A high-spatial-resolution, small-field-of-view g-camera detects and localizes g-ray energy emitted by the radiopharmaceutical 99m Tc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile (sestamibi), which preferentially accumulates in malignant breast cells with increased vascular supply and concentration of mitochondria compared with surrounding normal breast tissue. Images are acquired immediately after intravenous injection of the radiopharmaceutical, with the patient seated in standard mammographic views (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views) with the breast in mild compression for a total of approximately 40 min. Interpretation of breast-specific g-images follows a standardized lexicon and results in assessment categories and recommendations that parallel those of other imaging modalities outlined by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) (7-9).Although several studies have evaluated the performance of BSGI for diagnosing breast cancer in a heterogeneous mix of clinical indications (10), data regarding the application of BSGI for supplemental screening for women at increased breast cancer risk are sparse. The study by Brem et al. is a single-institution, retrospective review of asymptomatic, increased-risk women undergoing BSGI from 2010 to 2014 whose most recent screening mammogram showed no suspicious abnormalities (4). The study population consisted of 849 women ranging in age from 26 to 83 y with a personal history of treated breast cancer, a family history of breast cancer, a personal history of an atypical or high-risk breast biopsy result, or a known genetic predisposition to breast cancer development. BSGI detected 14 mammographically occult cancers in 849 women, resulting in a supplemental cancer detection rate of 16.5 per 1,000 women screened. Furthermore, mammographic breast density did not affe...

show abstract

Assessing Improvement in Detection of Breast Cancer with Three-dimensional Automated Breast US in Women with Dense Breast Tissue: The SomoInsight Study

Abstract: Addition of AB US to screening mammography in a generalizable cohort of women with dense breasts increased the cancer detection yield of clinically important cancers, but it also increased the number of false-positive results.

Cited by 288 publications

References 27 publications

Breast Ultrasound Past, Present, and Future

Breast Ultrasound Past, Present, and Future

3D Supine Automated Ultrasound (SAUS, ABUS, ABVS) for Supplemental Screening Women with Dense Breasts

Molecular Imaging Approaches for Supplemental Screening in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About