Comparison of handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound in women recalled after mammography screening

Hellgren, Roxanna; Dickman, Paul W.; Leifland, Karin; Saracco, Ariel; Hall, Per; Celebioglu, Fuat

doi:10.1177/0284185116665421

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, the presence of microcalcifications on mammography was associated with a lower BI-RADS category being assigned by ABUS. Previous studies have reported that neither HHUS nor ABUS could provide additional information regarding ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive ductal carcinoma presenting as microcalcifications [14,16]. In this retrospective review of cases exhibiting microcalcifications on mammography, uncertainty regarding the locational correlation between mammography and US findings and the conservative assessment of microcalcifications before magnification might have affected the BI-RADS grading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

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: 84%

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We then screened titles and abstracts to exclude 322 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria or that met the exclusion criteria. We completely evaluated the remaining 82 articles, among which 17 (12 in English, 5 in Chinese) (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) were selected for diagnostic accuracy analysis and 13 (11 in English, 2 in Chinese) (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34) were selected for detection rate analysis (Figure 1). Because 8 articles were used for both diagnostic accuracy and detection rate, a total of 22 articles (13-34) were included in this study (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound: a meta-analysis

Zhang¹,

Chen²,

Zhou³

et al. 2019

Gland Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The diagnostic performance of an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared with that of a hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) for breast cancer remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performances of the ABVS and HHUS for breast cancer.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and SinoMed databases to identify eligible studies up until November 14, 2018. Studies comparing ABVS and HHUS for differentiating benign and malignant breast tumors were included. A meta-analysis was performed to generate pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters [sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and the Q* index] and detection rates for ABVS and HHUS.Results: Nine studies involving 1,376 patients and 1,527 lesions were included in the meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. The pooled sensitivity was 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-0.95] for ABVS and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.92) for HHUS, and the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) for ABVS and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for HHUS. The pooled DOR was 88.66 (95% CI, 51.44-152.78) for ABVS and 41.06 for HHUS (95% CI, 26.58-63.42). The AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.9496 for ABVS and 0.9143 for HHUS, and the Q* index was 0.8899 for ABVS and 0.8469 for HHUS.Meta-regression showed no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of ABVS and HHUS (P=0.0771). No publication bias was found. Thirteen published studies involving 1,047 pathologically confirmed malignant lesions were included to generate a pooled detection rate. The pooled detection rate was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00) for both ABVS and HHUS, for which a publication bias was found.Conclusions: ABVS can be used as an appropriate screening tool for breast cancer as well as HHUS in diagnostic accuracy and detection rate. Considering other advantages of ABVS including non-radioactivity, sensitivity to dense breast, three-dimensional reconstruction, time-saving and repeatability, it might be a promising screening tool for young or dense-breast women in the future.

show abstract

“…The detected carcinomas had a mean size of 2.1 cm (mean size ranged between 1.6 cm to 2.6 cm) in seven of the 21 studies [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. The mean level of malignancy detected was 94% (81–100%) contrasted with non-cancer in all examinations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The large variation of these positive predictive values is chiefly due to the application of different assessment categories and different sonographic criteria for malignancy. Only three studies reported that all findings were classified as benign post biopsy [ 35 , 39 , 40 ]. Nonetheless, three studies did not specify the follow-up for patients with positive outcomes [ 26 , 33 , 41 ] ( Table 2 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Volume Scanner Compared to Handheld Ultrasound on Different Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of the automatic breast volume scanner (ABVS) against the handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. Methods: A systematic search and review of studies involving ABVS and HHUS for breast cancer screening were performed. The search involved the data taken from Scopus, PubMed, and science direct databases and was conducted between the year 2011 to 2020. The prospective method was used in determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria while the evidence level was determined using the BI-RADS categories for diagnostic studies. In addition, the parameters of specificity, mean age, sensitivity, tumor number, and diagnostic accuracy of the ABVS and HHUS were summarized. Results: No systematic review or randomized controlled trial were identified in the systematic search while one cross-sectional study, eight retrospective studies, and 10 prospective studies were found. Sufficient follow-up of the subjects with benign and malignant findings were made only in 10 studies, in which only two had used ABVS and HHUS after performing mammographic screening and MRI. Analysis was made of 21 studies, which included 5448 lesions (4074 benign and 1374 malignant) taken from 6009 patients. The range of sensitivity was (0.72–1.0) for ABVS and (0.62–1.0) for HHUS; the specificity range was (0.52–0.98)% for ABVS and (0.49–0.99)% for HHUS. The accuracy range among the 11 studies was (80–99)% and (59–98)% for the HHUS and ABVS, respectively. The identified tumors had a mean size of 2.1 cm, and the detected cancers had a mean percentage of 94% (81–100)% in comparison to the non-cancer in all studies. Conclusions: The evidence available in the literature points to the fact that the diagnostic performance of both ABVS and HHUS are similar with reference to the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions.

show abstract

Comparison of handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound in women recalled after mammography screening

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 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

Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound: a meta-analysis

Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Volume Scanner Compared to Handheld Ultrasound on Different Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About