Whole-Breast Ultrasound for Breast Screening and Archiving

Huang, Chiun‐Sheng; Yang, Yu‐Cih; Chen, Rong-Tai; Lo, Chung-Ming; Lo, Chao; Cheng, Ching-Fen; Lee, Chao-Shuan; Chang, Ruey-Feng

doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.01.009

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, full-volume data and three-dimensional reconstruction may provide whole breast image and make ABVS work better than HHUS in bigbreast women. What's more, ABVS is less time consuming, and the information is comprehensive and repeatable, which has contributed to its rise in popularity (39,40). A malignant lesion in ABVS is mainly identified through a unique convergence sign due owing to infiltration, traction, and deformation of surrounding tissues in a coronal section scan (Figure S1), which is not obtainable using conventional HHUS (25,29,38) flow signal and no real-time probe direction adjustment for suspicious lesions, which need to be further improved in the future.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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: Discussionmentioning

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

“…Because of this, the ultrasound is the main imaging method for breast cancer screening or diagnosis in China and the main supplementary method for screening in other countries. Nevertheless, the reliability of the conventional HHUS is still controversial due to high false-positive rates and signi cant operator dependence [13][14][15]. In Filip Šroubek et al whole-breast ultrasound study, about 3% of the cases missed at least a portion of 1 cm 2 [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have con rmed that the automated breast ultrasound does not depend on the operator's experience [6,17] and increases the sensitivity and speci city of breast cancer screening when compared with mammography. The whole breast ultrasound (WBUS) system based on electromagnetic tracking has been reported as less dependent on the operator than HHUS [14,19]. For its part, the AI-Breast ultrasound is similar to WBUS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency And Impact Factors of Anatomical Intelligence For Breast And Hand-Held Ultrasound In Lesion Screening: A Pilot Study

Dai

Bao

Yan

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the efficiency and impact factors of anatomical intelligence for breast (AI-Breast) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in lesion screening. Methods: A total of 172 outpatient women were randomly selected, underwent AI-Breast ultrasound (Group AI) once and HHUS twice. HHUS was performed by breast image radiologists (Group A) and general radiologists (Group B). For the AI-Breast examination, a trained technician performed the whole-breast scan and data acquisition, while other general radiologists performed image interpretation. The examination time and lesion detection rate were recorded. The impact factors for breast lesion screening, including breast cup size, lesion number (LN), and benign or malignant lesions were analyzed.Results: Scan times of Groups AI, A, and B were 262.15±40.4 s, 237.5±110.3 s, 281.2±86.1 s, respectively. The scan time of Group AI was significantly higher than Group A (P<0.01), but was slightly lower than Group B (P>0.05). The detection rates of Group AI, A, and B were 92.8±17.0%, 95.0±13.6%, and 85.0±22.9%, respectively. Comparable lesion detection rates were observed in Group AI and Group A (P>0.05), but a significantly lower lesion detection rate was observed in Group B compared to the other two (both P<0.05). Regarding missed diagnosis rates of malignant lesions, comparable performance was observed in Group AI, Group A, and Group B (8% vs. 4% vs. 14%, all P>0.05). We found a strong linear correlation between scan time and cup size in Group AI (r=0.745). No impacts of cup size and LN were found on the lesion detection rate in Group AI (P>0.05). Conclusions: The screening efficiency of AI-Breast ultrasound was comparable to that of a breast image radiologist and superior to that of the general radiologist. AI-Breast ultrasound may be used as a potential approach for breast cancer screening.

show abstract

“…(c) Freehand method using a mechanical external fixture (Yan et al 2012). (d,e) Freehand method using an electromagnetic tracking system (Gilja et al 1998;Huang et al 2017).…”

Section: Sensorless Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freehand 3-D Ultrasound Imaging: A Systematic Review

Mozaffari

Lee

2017

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-dimensional ultrasound (US) imaging has been successfully used in clinical applications as a low-cost, portable and non-invasive image modality for more than three decades. Recent advances in computer science and technology illustrate the promise of the 3-D US modality as a medical imaging technique that is comparable to other prevalent modalities and that overcomes certain drawbacks of 2-D US. This systematic review covers freehand 3-D US imaging between 1970 and 2017, highlighting the current trends in research fields, the research methods, the main limitations, the leading researchers, standard assessment criteria and clinical applications. Freehand 3-D US systems are more prevalent in the academic environment, whereas in clinical applications and industrial research, most studies have focused on 3-D US transducers and improvement of hardware performance. This topic is still an interesting active area for researchers, and there remain many unsolved problems to be addressed.

show abstract

Whole-Breast Ultrasound for Breast Screening and Archiving

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 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

Efficiency And Impact Factors of Anatomical Intelligence For Breast And Hand-Held Ultrasound In Lesion Screening: A Pilot Study

Freehand 3-D Ultrasound Imaging: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About