Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-12-2015 | Breast

Diagnostic performance of the automated breast volume scanner: a systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions

Authors: Zheying Meng, Cui Chen, Yitong Zhu, Shuling Zhang, Cong Wei, Bin Hu, Li Yu, Bing Hu, E. Shen

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2015

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of the automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) and the diagnostic accuracy for differentiating malignant and benign lesions. The overall aim was to find out if the ABVS is applicable to daily clinical practice.

Methods

Qualifying studies were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Biosis Preview, CBM disc and by manual search and reference lists up to 30 September 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of ABVS were calculated and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn.

Results

Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and seven studies were included in the systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement of ABVS. For ‘diagnostic accuracy’, the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 92 % (95 % CI 89.9–93.8), 84.9 % (82.4–87.0), 6.172 (4.364–8.730), 0.101 (0.075–0.136), and 72.226 (39.637–131.61), respectively. For the studies of inter-rater reliability/agreement, the quality was heterogeneous and no evidenced result can be pooled.

Conclusions

Sensitivity and specificity of ABVS for differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions were high. More sound studies focusing on inter-rater reliability/agreement of ABVS, which deeply affect the clinical utilization and generalization of ABVS, are urgently needed.

Key Points

• ABVS has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions.

• The quality of published inter-rater reliability studies is heterogeneous.

• Empirical evidence concerning the inter-rater reliability/agreement for the ABVS is rare.

• Comparison studies on ABVS and other medical imaging examinations are warranted.

Available only for authorised users

Youlden DR, Cramb SM, Dunn NA et al (2012) The descriptive epidemiology of female breast cancer: an international comparison of screening, incidence, survival and mortality. Cancer Epidemiol 3:237–248CrossRef

Bosetti C, Bertuccio P, Levi F et al (2012) The decline in breast cancer mortality in Europe: an update (to 2009). Breast 1:77–82CrossRef

Thangjam S, Laishram RS, Debnath K (2014) Breast carcinoma in young females below the age of 40 years: a histopathological perspective. South Asian J Cancer 2:97–100

Keegan TH, DeRouen MC, Press DJ et al (2012) Occurrence of breast cancer subtypes in adolescent and young adult women. Breast Cancer Res 2:R55CrossRef

Assi HA, Khoury KE, Dbouk H et al (2013) Epidemiology and prognosis of breast cancer in young women. J Thorac Dis 5:S2–S8PubMedCentralPubMed

Corbex M, Bouzbid S, Boffetta P (2014) Features of breast cancer in developing countries, examples from North-Africa. Eur J Cancer 10:1808–1818CrossRef

Dobi A, Kelemen G, Kaizer L et al (2011) Breast cancer under 40 years of age: increasing number and worse prognosis. Pathol Oncol Res 2:425–428CrossRef

Chow LW, Yip AY, Ng EL (2012) Prevention of oncological diseases: primary and secondary prevention. Int J Biol Markers 4:e337–e343CrossRef

Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 1:16–24CrossRef

10.

Schmidt MM, Powers KJ (2011) Breast imaging: screening and evaluation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1:103–109CrossRef

11.

Drukteinis JS, Mooney BP, Flowers CI et al (2013) Beyond mammography: new frontiers in breast cancer screening. Am J Med 6:472–479CrossRef

12.

Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA et al (2012) Independent UK panel on breast cancer screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 9855:1778–1786

13.

Partridge AH, Hughes ME, Ottesen RA et al (2012) The effect of age on delay in diagnosis and stage of breast cancer. Oncologist 6:775–782CrossRef

14.

Webb ML, Cady B, Michaelson JS et al (2013) A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened. Cancer 18:2839–2846

15.

Fletcher SW (2014) Annual mammography screening did not reduce long-term breast cancer mortality in women 40 to 59 years of age. Ann Intern Med 10:C7CrossRef

16.

Partridge AH, Pagani O, Abulkhair O et al (2014) First international consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY1). Breast 3:209–220CrossRef

17.

Galukande M, Kiguli-Malwadde E (2010) Rethinking breast cancer screening strategies in resource-limited settings. Afr Health Sci 1:89–92

18.

Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S et al (2011) Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud 6:661–671CrossRef

19.

Fewell Z (2005) Statistical evaluation of measurement errors: design and analysis of reliability studies. [Book or Media Review]. Int J Epidemiol 2:499CrossRef

20.

Streiner DL, Norman GR (2003) Health measurement scales, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford

21.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 1:W1–W12CrossRef

22.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 8:529–536CrossRef

23.

Kottner J, Gajewski BJ, Streiner DL (2011) Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS). Int J Nurs Stud 6:659–660CrossRef

24.

Kottner J, Dassen T, Tannen A (2009) Inter- and intrarater reliability of the Waterlow pressure sore risk scale: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 3:369–379CrossRef

25.

Lucas NP, Macaskill P, Irwig L et al (2010) The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). J Clin Epidemiol 8:854–861CrossRef

26.

Pons C, Remy-Neris O, Medee B et al (2013) Validity and reliability of radiological methods to assess proximal hip geometry in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 12:1089–1102CrossRef

27.

Major MP, Saltaji H, El-Hakim H et al (2014) The accuracy of diagnostic tests for adenoid hypertrophy A systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 3:247–254CrossRef

28.

Gorgos KS, Wasylyk NT, Van Lunen BL et al (2014) Inter-clinician and intra-clinician reliability of force application during joint mobilization: a systematic review. Man Ther 2:90–96CrossRef

29.

Moloney NA, Hall TM, Doody CM (2012) Reliability of thermal quantitative sensory testing: a systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2:191–207CrossRef

30.

Lucas N, Macaskill P, Irwig L et al (2013) The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). BMC Med Res Methodol 13:111PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

31.

Duffy L, Gajree S, Langhorne P et al (2013) Reliability (inter-rater agreement) of the Barthel Index for assessment of stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2:462–468CrossRef

32.

Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A et al (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

33.

Walter SD (2002) Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med 9:1237–1256CrossRef

34.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 11:1539–1558CrossRef

35.

Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 7305:157–162CrossRef

36.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed

37.

Wang ZL, Xu JH, Li JL et al (2012) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med 8:1287–1293CrossRef

38.

Lin X, Wang J, Han F et al (2012) Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 5:873–878CrossRef

39.

Chen L, Chen Y, Diao XH et al (2013) Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol 10:1735–1742CrossRef

40.

Kim H, Cha JH, Oh HY et al (2012) Comparison of conventional and automated breast volume ultrasound in the description and characterization of solid breast masses based on BI-RADS features. Breast Cancer 4:423–428

41.

Wang HY, Jiang YX, Zhu QL et al (2012) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol 11:3190–3200CrossRef

42.

Golatta M, Franz D, Harcos A et al (2013) Interobserver reliability of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) interpretation and agreement of ABVS findings with hand held breast ultrasound (HHUS), mammography and pathology results. Eur J Radiol 8:e332–e336CrossRef

43.

Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG et al (2013) Radiologists' performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound. Korean J Radiol 2:154–163CrossRef

44.

Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N et al (2011) Radiologists' performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). Eur J Radiol 1:99–103CrossRef

45.

Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S et al (2009) Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 1:109–115CrossRef

46.

Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH et al (2011) Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 3:747–754CrossRef

47.

Moon WK, Lo CM, Chen RT et al (2014) Tumor detection in automated breast ultrasound images using quantitative tissue clustering. Med Phys 4:42901CrossRef

48.

Li M, Jiang XH, Ma XT et al (2013) Diagnostic value of automated breast volume scanner images on benign and malignant breast masses. J Chin Clin Med Imaging 9:622–625 (in Chinese)

49.

Chen CJ, Zhang Y, Shi XY et al (2013) Comparison of ultrasonic automated breast volume scanning and ultrasonic elastography in the diagnosis for breast lesion. J Chin Oncol 2:122–124 (in Chinese)

50.

Chae EY, Shin HJ, Kim HJ et al (2013) Diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound as a replacement for a hand-held second-look ultrasound for breast lesions detected initially on magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 12:2246–2254CrossRef

51.

Zhang J, Lai XJ, Zhu QL et al (2012) Interobserver agreement for sonograms of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner. Eur J Radiol 9:2179–2183CrossRef

52.

Wojcinski S, Gyapong S, Farrokh A et al (2013) Diagnostic performance and inter-observer concordance in lesion detection with the automated breast volume scanner (ABVS). BMC Med Imaging 13:36PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

53.

Whiting P, Harbord R, Kleijnen J (2005) No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:19PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

54.

JPT H, Editors GS (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org

55.

Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U et al (2011) The Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases. Int J Womens Health 3:337–346PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

56.

Isobe S, Tozaki M, Yamaguchi M et al (2011) Detectability of breast lesions under the nipple using an automated breast volume scanner: comparison with handheld ultrasonography. Jpn J Radiol 5:361–365CrossRef

57.

Stoblen F, Landt S, Stelkens-Gebhardt R et al (2011) First evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of an automated 3D ultrasound system in a breast screening setting. Anticancer Res 8:2569–2574

58.

Su KL, Xu HB, Zhang ZX et al (2013) Diagnostic value of automated breast volume scanner in high-risk and small breast lesions. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 9:703–707

59.

Wang M, Zhu QL, Jiang YX et al (2014) Automated breast volume scanning in the diagnosis of breast intraductal papilloma. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 1:52–56

Title: Diagnostic performance of the automated breast volume scanner: a systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions
Authors: Zheying Meng
Cui Chen
Yitong Zhu
Shuling Zhang
Cong Wei
Bin Hu
Li Yu
Bing Hu
E. Shen
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 12/2015
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3759-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Diagnostic performance of the automated breast volume scanner: a systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2015

Astrocytic tumour grading: a comparative study of three-dimensional pseudocontinuous arterial spin labelling, dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted imaging, and diffusion-weighted imaging

Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information

Percutaneous transhepatic balloon-assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for chronic, totally occluded, portal vein thrombosis with symptomatic portal hypertension: procedure technique, safety, and clinical applications

Cardiac MRI assessment of right ventricular function: impact of right bundle branch block on the evaluation of cardiac performance parameters

Anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery: diagnostic accuracy of CT

Scaled signal intensity of uterine fibroids based on T2-weighted MR images: a potential objective method to determine the suitability for magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery of uterine fibroids