Detectability and Usefulness of Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound in Patients with Suspicious Microcalcifications on Mammography: Comparison with Handheld Breast Ultrasound

Choi, Jae Jeong; Kim, Sung Hun; Kang, Bong Joo; Song, Byung Joo

doi:10.4048/jbc.2016.19.4.429

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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

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

show abstract

“…However, despite the small number of cases, we found that the MDTA imaging method may have less additional value when detecting amorphous calcifications, which have been reported to be difficult to detect with B-mode US as well 20 . The single case that showed a detection rate lower than 80% for consensus-positive cells presented as amorphous grouped microcalcifications on mammography, with a detection rate of 50% using MDTA imaging.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Feasibility study using multifocal Doppler twinkling artifacts to detect suspicious microcalcifications in ex vivo specimens of breast cancer on US

Park

Kang

Han

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multifocal Doppler twinkling artifact (MDTA) imaging has shown high detection rates of microcalcifications in phantom studies. We aimed to evaluate its performance in detecting suspicious microcalcifications in comparison with mammography by using ex vivo breast cancer specimens. We prospectively included ten women with breast cancer that presented with calcifications on mammography. Both digital specimen mammography and MDTA imaging were performed for ex vivo breast cancer specimens on the day of surgery. Five breast radiologists marked cells that included suspicious microcalcifications (referred to as ‘positive cell’) on specimen mammographic images using a grid of 5-mm cells. Cells that were marked by at least three readers were considered as ‘consensus-positive’. Matched color Doppler twinkling artifact (CDTA) signals were compared between reconstructed US-MDTA projection images and mammographic images. The median detection rate for each case was 74.7% for positive cells and 96.7% for consensus-positive cells. Of the 10 cases, 90% showed a detection rate of ≥ 80%, with 50% of cases showing a 100% detection rate for consensus-positive cells. The proposed MDTA imaging method showed high performance for detecting suspicious microcalcifications in ex vivo breast cancer specimens, and may be a feasible approach for detecting suspicious breast microcalcifications with US.

show abstract

“…83.0% (477/575) were detected by AB US, which was higher than 74.4% in Choi et al’s study. Similarly, the detection rate of malignant calcification was significantly higher than that in benign lesions (88.7% vs. 78.1%) [ 18 ], which were displayed with architectural distortion, amorphous, coarse heterogeneous and fine pleomorphic morphology, and distributed with grouped, linear and segmental.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there are few reports on the evaluation of microcalcifications by AB US. To our knowledge, only a prospective study by Choi et al reported that ABUS and HHUS have comparable detectability for suspicious calcification in a small sample (including 42 patients with 43 suspicious microcalcifications) [ 18 ]. The detection and diagnostic ability of AB US for breast microcalcification needs further exploration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection and diagnosis of automated breast ultrasound in patients with BI-RADS category 4 microcalcifications: a retrospective study

Yu,

Dai,

Zhu

et al. 2024

BMC Med Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Automated Breast Ultrasound (AB US) has shown good application value and prospects in breast disease screening and diagnosis. The aim of the study was to explore the ability of AB US to detect and diagnose mammographically Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 microcalcifications. Methods 575 pathologically confirmed mammographically BI-RADS category 4 microcalcifications from January 2017 to June 2021 were included. All patients also completed AB US examinations. Based on the final pathological results, analyzed and summarized the AB US image features, and compared the evaluation results with mammography, to explore the detection and diagnostic ability of AB US for these suspicious microcalcifications. Results 250 were finally confirmed as malignant and 325 were benign. Mammographic findings including microcalcifications morphology (61/80 with amorphous, coarse heterogeneous and fine pleomorphic, 13/14 with fine-linear or branching), calcification distribution (189/346 with grouped, 40/67 with linear and segmental), associated features (70/96 with asymmetric shadow), higher BI-RADS category with 4B (88/120) and 4 C (73/38) showed higher incidence in malignant lesions, and were the independent factors associated with malignant microcalcifications. 477 (477/575, 83.0%) microcalcifications were detected by AB US, including 223 malignant and 254 benign, with a significantly higher detection rate for malignant lesions (x2 = 12.20, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed microcalcifications with architectural distortion (odds ratio [OR] = 0.30, P = 0.014), with amorphous, coarse heterogeneous and fine pleomorphic morphology (OR = 3.15, P = 0.037), grouped (OR = 1.90, P = 0.017), liner and segmental distribution (OR = 8.93, P = 0.004) were the independent factors which could affect the detectability of AB US for microcalcifications. In AB US, malignant calcification was more frequent in a mass (104/154) or intraductal (20/32), and with ductal changes (30/41) or architectural distortion (58/68), especially with the both (12/12). BI-RADS category results also showed that AB US had higher sensitivity to malignant calcification than mammography (64.8% vs. 46.8%). Conclusions AB US has good detectability for mammographically BI-RADS category 4 microcalcifications, especially for malignant lesions. Malignant calcification is more common in a mass and intraductal in AB US, and tend to associated with architectural distortion or duct changes. Also, AB US has higher sensitivity than mammography to malignant microcalcification, which is expected to become an effective supplementary examination method for breast microcalcifications, especially in dense breasts.

show abstract

Detectability and Usefulness of Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound in Patients with Suspicious Microcalcifications on Mammography: Comparison with Handheld Breast Ultrasound

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

Feasibility study using multifocal Doppler twinkling artifacts to detect suspicious microcalcifications in ex vivo specimens of breast cancer on US

Detection and diagnosis of automated breast ultrasound in patients with BI-RADS category 4 microcalcifications: a retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About