Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography

Golatta, Michael; Baggs, Christina; Schweitzer-Martin, Mirjam; Domschke, Christoph; Schott, Sarah; Harcos, Aba; Scharf, A.; Junkermann, H.; Rauch, Geraldine; Rom, Joachim; Sohn, Christof; Heil, Joerg

doi:10.1007/s00404-014-3509-9

Cited by 42 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The time needed to evaluate AB US examinations is reported to be 3-5 minutes for a full normal case (12). The interpretation and diagnostic accuracy of AB US are comparable to those of handheld US (30)(31)(32)(33).…”

Section: Postprocessing Multiplanar Reformation and Image Interpretmentioning

confidence: 97%

Automated Three-dimensional Breast US for Screening: Technique, Artifacts, and Lesion Characterization

Zelst¹,

Mann²

2018

RadioGraphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automated breast (AB) ultrasonography (US) scanners have recently been brought to market for breast imaging. AB US devices use mechanically driven wide linear-array transducers that can image whole-breast US volumes in three dimensions. AB US is proposed for screening as a supplemental modality to mammography in women with dense breasts and overcomes important limitations of whole-breast US using handheld devices, such as operator dependence and limited reproducibility. A literature review of supplemental whole-breast US for screening was performed, which showed that both AB US and handheld US allow detection of mammographically negative early-stage invasive breast cancers but also increase the false-positive recall rate. Technicians with limited training can perform AB US; nevertheless, there is a learning curve for acquiring optimal images. Proper acquisition technique may allow avoidance of common artifacts that could impair interpretation of AB US results. Regardless, interpretation of AB US results can be challenging. This article reviews the US appearance of common benign and malignant lesions and presents examples of false-positive and false-negative AB US results. In situ breast cancers are rarely detected with supplemental whole-breast US. The most discriminating feature that separates AB US from handheld US is the retraction phenomenon on coronal reformatted images. The retraction phenomenon is rarely seen with benign findings but accompanies almost all breast cancers. In conclusion, women with dense breasts may benefit from supplemental AB US examinations. Understanding the pitfalls in acquisition technique and lesion interpretation, both of which can lead to false-positive recalls, might reduce the potential harm of performing supplemental AB US. Online supplemental material is available for this article. RSNA, 2018.

show abstract

Section: Postprocessing Multiplanar Reformation and Image Interpretmentioning

confidence: 97%

Automated Three-dimensional Breast US for Screening: Technique, Artifacts, and Lesion Characterization

Zelst¹,

Mann²

2018

RadioGraphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Automated breast ultrasound is an increasingly used technique for breast cancer diagnosis and appears to be a promising adjunct method to mammography in screening programmes in women with dense breasts [7,13,14]. One of the principles required in a screening programme is that the test should be acceptable by the population, as it is important that the patient is comfortable in order to ensure compliance and completion of the exam.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous works [14,17,18] have compared ABUS to HHUS in terms of clinical performance in the detection and characterisation of breast lesions, but very few studies [9,19] evaluated the patient's perspective and tolerability of the examination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast ultrasound: automated or hand-held? Exploring patients’ experience and preference

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Our aim was to compare women's experience with automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) versus breast hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and to evaluate their acceptance rate. Methods: After ethical approval, from October 2017 to March 2018, 79 consecutive patients were enrolled in this prospective study. On the same day, patients underwent HHUS followed by ABUS. Each patient's experience was assessed using the modified testing morbidities index (TMI) (the lower the score, the better is the experience). Nine items were assessed for both techniques: seven directly related to the examination technique (pain or discomfort immediately before (preparation), during and after testing, fear or anxiety immediately before (preparation) and during testing, physical and mental function after testing) and two indirectly related to the examination technique (embarrassment during testing and overall satisfaction). Finally, we asked patients to choose between the two techniques for a potential next breast examination. Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used. Results: The median TMI score for the seven items was found to be significantly better for HHUS (8, interquartile range [IQR] 7-11) compared to ABUS (9, IQR 8-12) (p = 0.003). The item 'pain/discomfort during the test' (p < 0.001) was significantly higher for ABUS compared to HHUS. Instead, the item 'fear/anxiety before the test' was higher for HHUS (p = 0.001). Overall, 40.5% of the patients chose HHUS, 29.1% chose ABUS, and 30.4% were unable to choose. Conclusions: ABUS and HHUS exams were well tolerated and accepted. However, HHUS was perceived to be less painful than ABUS.

show abstract

“…Golatta et al 9 prospectively assessed a large number of 983 patients with 1,966 breasts. They reported a high negative predictive value of 98% (1, 520/1,551), a high specificity of 85% (1,520/1,794), and a sensitivity of 74% (88/119), based on the cases of US-guided biopsy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Automated Breast Volume Scanning be an Alternative Tool to Handheld Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Screening?

Ariyaratrangsee¹,

Saksirinukul²,

Ninpiethoon³

et al. 2017

bkkmedj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

B reast cancer is the leading site of new cancer patients in Thai females (41.96% of all female cancers) according to Thai cancer registry of 2015. 1 Mammogramphy is widely accepted for screening breast cancer. However, the low sensitivity of mammography for dense breasts, women younger than 50 years of age and small-sized cancers remains a major limitation. 2 The use of ultrasonography as adjunctive tool to mammography increases detection rate of screening mammography. 3 There is a shortage of both physicians and well-trained technologists to perform breast ultrasound screening. 4 Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is a novel approach for breast screening ultrasound in which the image acquisition is uncoupled from the interpretation. The study is reviewed by the radiologist on a dedicated workstation using the entire dataset for interpretation. Compared with technologist-performed bilateral handheld ultrasound, in which representative images are presented for interpretation, automated breast ultrasound allows the physician to interpret the entire study and identify the suspicious lesions. Furthermore, automated breast ultrasound allows improved consistency and reproducibility of images, minimizes operator dependence, and aids with inclusion of the entirety of the breast. It does not require physician time for image acquisition and allows review of the study at either the time of acquisition or a later time.ABUS is also cost-effective. 5 Therefore the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ABUS as the only approved system of its kind for screening women with dense breast tissue.Our department started installation of ABUS screening in a bus in order to perform adjunctive breast ultrasonography for mobile breast cancer screening. We present our initial experience and discuss its role in breast screening. Abstract BACKGROUND:To assess diagnostic value of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) versus handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) in breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 110 participants received an ABVS examination compared with HHUS which was set up as a standard tool. The scans were interpreted by specialists blinded to the results of breast imaging and medical history. Cohen Kappa value was used to interpret agreement between diagnostic tools. RESULTS: On the basis of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification, of the 110 cases, an agreement was achieved in 102 cases (92.7%). Kappa value (K) was 0.885 representing almost perfect agreement. CONCLUSION: We concluded that ABVS is comparable to HHUS as an adjunctive tool to mammography for screening of breast cancer

show abstract

Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography

Abstract: The results of this study let us suggest, that automated 3D-US might be a helpful new tool in breast imaging, especially in screening.

Cited by 42 publications

References 34 publications

Automated Three-dimensional Breast US for Screening: Technique, Artifacts, and Lesion Characterization

Automated Three-dimensional Breast US for Screening: Technique, Artifacts, and Lesion Characterization

Breast ultrasound: automated or hand-held? Exploring patients’ experience and preference

Can Automated Breast Volume Scanning be an Alternative Tool to Handheld Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Screening?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About