Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 2/2018

01-02-2018 | Breast

The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women

Authors: Athina Vourtsis, Aspasia Kachulis

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared to hand-held traditional ultrasound (HHUS) in the visualisation and BIRADS characterisation of breast lesions.

Materials and methods

From January 2016 to January 2017, 1,886 women with breast density category C or D (aged 48.6±10.8 years) were recruited. All participants underwent ABUS and HHUS examination; a subcohort of 1,665 women also underwent a mammography.

Results

The overall agreement between HHUS and ABUS was 99.8 %; kappa=0.994, p<0.0001. Two cases were graded as BI-RADS 1 in HHUS, but were graded as BIRADS 4 in ABUS; biopsy revealed a radial scar. Three carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 4 in ABUS; two additional carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS. Two carcinomas, appearing as a well-circumscribed mass or developing asymmetry in mammography, were graded as BI-RADS 4 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS.

Conclusions

ABUS could be successfully used in the visualisation and characterisation of breast lesions. ABUS seemed to outperform HHUS in the detection of architectural distortion on the coronal plane and can supplement mammography in the detection of non-calcified carcinomas in women with dense breasts.

Key Points

• The new generation of ABUS yields comparable results to HHUS.
• ABUS seems superior to HHUS in detecting architectural distortions.
• In dense breasts, supplemental ABUS to mammography detects additional cancers.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM et al (2014) Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology 270:369–377CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 265:59–69CrossRefPubMed
4.
Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A et al (2008) Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 44:539–544CrossRefPubMed
5.
Scheel JR, Lee JM, Sprague BL, Lee CI, Lehman CD (2015) Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212:9–17CrossRefPubMed
6.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M (2000) Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 21:325–336CrossRefPubMed
9.
Berg WA (2009) Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:390–399CrossRefPubMed
10.
Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW et al (2015) Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology 274:663–673CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K (2016) Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: Report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol 85:1554–1563CrossRefPubMed
12.
Giger ML, Inciardi MF, Edwards A et al (2016) Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1341–1350CrossRefPubMed
13.
Madjar H, Mendelson EB (2008) The Practice of Breast Ultrasound. Thieme, New YorkCrossRef
14.
American College of Radiology (2013) BI-RADS: ultrasound. Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas. 5th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston
15.
Scaranelo AM, de Fatima Ribeiro Maia M (2006) Sonographic and mammographic findings of breast liquid silicone injection. J Clin Ultrasound 34:273–277CrossRefPubMed
16.
Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663CrossRefPubMed
17.
Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919CrossRefPubMed
18.
Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M (2006) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001877
19.
Onega T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer 120:2955–2964CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kelly KM, Dean J, Lee SJ, Comulada WS (2010) Breast cancer detection: radiologists’ performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound. Eur Radiol 20:2557–2564CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Golatta M, Baggs C, Schweitzer-Martin M et al (2015) Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291:889–895CrossRefPubMed
23.
Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, Park JH, Lee KE, Kim JH (2011) Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:747–754CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Giuliano V, Giuliano C (2013) Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 37:480–486CrossRefPubMed
26.
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 81:3190–3200CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kim EJ, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Kim YJ (2014) Interobserver agreement on the interpretation of automated whole breast ultrasonography. Ultrasonography 33:252–258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zheng FY, Yan LX, Huang BJ et al (2015) Comparison of retraction phenomenon and BI-RADS-US descriptors in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses using an automated breast volume scanner. Eur J Radiol 84:2123–2129CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kim YW, Kim SK, Youn HJ, Choi EJ, Jung SH (2013) The clinical utility of automated breast volume scanner: a pilot study of 139 cases. J Breast Cancer 16:329–334CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A (2012) Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 81:873–878CrossRefPubMed
31.
Van Zelst JC, Platel B, Karssemeijer N, Mann RM (2015) Multiplanar Reconstructions of 3D Automated Breast Ultrasound Improve Lesion Differentiation by Radiologists. Acad Radiol 22:1489–1496CrossRefPubMed
32.
Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, Sandhaug M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Stoeblen F (2015) Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiol 56:404–412CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women
Authors
Athina Vourtsis
Aspasia Kachulis
Publication date
01-02-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5011-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

European Radiology 2/2018 Go to the issue

Magnetic Resonance

Clinical utility of visualisation of nigrosome-1 in patients with Parkinson’s disease

Urogenital

Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between 2012 and 2016

Breast

Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations

Magnetic Resonance

Invasive placenta previa: Placental bulge with distorted uterine outline and uterine serosal hypervascularity at 1.5T MRI – useful features for differentiating placenta percreta from placenta accreta

Musculoskeletal

Piriformis muscle syndrome: A cross-sectional imaging study in 116 patients and evaluation of therapeutic outcome

Urogenital

Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: Can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI?