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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 6/2018

01-06-2018 | Breast

Initial results of the FUSION-X-US prototype combining 3D automated breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis

Authors: Benedikt Schaefgen, Joerg Heil, Richard G. Barr, Marcus Radicke, Aba Harcos, Christina Gomez, Anne Stieber, André Hennigs, Alexandra von Au, Julia Spratte, Geraldine Rauch, Joachim Rom, Florian Schütz, Christof Sohn, Michael Golatta

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the feasibility of a prototype device combining 3D-automated breast ultrasound (ABVS) and digital breast tomosynthesis in a single device to detect and characterize breast lesions.

Methods

In this prospective feasibility study, the FUSION-X-US prototype was used to perform digital breast tomosynthesis and ABVS in 23 patients with an indication for tomosynthesis based on current guidelines after clinical examination and standard imaging. The ABVS and tomosynthesis images of the prototype were interpreted separately by two blinded experts. The study compares the detection and BI-RADS® scores of breast lesions using only the tomosynthesis and ABVS data from the FUSION-X-US prototype to the results of the complete diagnostic workup.

Results

Image acquisition and processing by the prototype was fast and accurate, with some limitations in ultrasound coverage and image quality. In the diagnostic workup, 29 solid lesions (23 benign, including three cases with microcalcifications, and six malignant lesions) were identified. Using the prototype, all malignant lesions were detected and classified as malignant or suspicious by both investigators.

Conclusion

Solid breast lesions can be localized accurately and fast by the Fusion-X-US system. Technical improvements of the ultrasound image quality and ultrasound coverage are needed to further study this new device.

Key Points

  • The prototype combines tomosynthesis and automated 3D-ultrasound (ABVS) in one device.
  • It allows accurate detection of malignant lesions, directly correlating tomosynthesis and ABVS data.
  • The diagnostic evaluation of the prototype-acquired data was interpreter-independent.
  • The prototype provides a time-efficient and technically reliable diagnostic procedure.
  • The combination of tomosynthesis and ABVS is a promising diagnostic approach.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Gotzsche PC, Jorgensen KJ (2013) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Jun 4;:CD001877
2.
Kerlikowske K (1997) Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: Comparison of relative and absolute benefit. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997:79–86CrossRef
3.
Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S et al (1993) Breast cancer screening with mammography: Overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 341:973–978CrossRefPubMed
4.
Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175CrossRefPubMed
5.
Buist DSM, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E (2004) Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1432–1440CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (1998) Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: Detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 207:191–199CrossRefPubMed
7.
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
8.
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
9.
Alakhras M, Bourne R, Rickard M, Ng KH, Pietrzyk M, Brennan PC (2013) Digital tomosynthesis: A new future for breast imaging? Clinical radiology 68:e225–e236CrossRefPubMed
10.
Houssami N, Zackrisson S (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis: The future of mammography screening or much ado about nothing? Expert Rev Med Devices 10:583–585CrossRefPubMed
11.
Skaane P (2017) Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast cancer 24:32–41CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
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 206:1341–1350CrossRefPubMed
14.
Halshtok-Neiman O, Shalmon A, Rundstein A, Servadio Y, Gotleib M, Sklair-Levy M (2015) Use of Automated Breast Volumetric Sonography as a Second-Look Tool for Findings in Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Isr Med Assoc J 17:410–413PubMed
15.
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 Rad 82:e332-e336.
16.
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
17.
18.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): A prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed
19.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed
20.
Wojcinski S, Gyapong S, Farrokh A, Soergel P, Hillemanns P, Degenhardt F (2013) Diagnostic performance and inter-observer concordance in lesion detection with the automated breast volume scanner (ABVS). BMC Med Imaging 13:36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
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
22.
Kapur A, Carson PL, Eberhard J et al (2004) Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound. Technol Cancer Res Treat 3:325–334CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Padilla F, Roubidoux MA, Paramagul C et al (2013) Breast mass characterization using 3-dimensional automated ultrasound as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 32:93–104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Richter K, Winzer KJ, Frohberg HD et al (1998) Combination of mammography with automated ultrasound (Sono-X) in routine diagnosis? Zentralbl Chir 123:37–41PubMed
25.
Sinha SP, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA et al. (2007) IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Annual Conference. 2007:1335–8
26.
Wockel A, Kreienberg R (2008) First Revision of the German S3 Guideline 'Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer'. Breast Care (Basel) 3:82–86CrossRef
27.
Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS mammography. In: D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, (ed) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS—breast imaging atlas. 5th edn. Reston, VA. J Am Coll Radiol 272(2):309–315
Metadata
Title
Initial results of the FUSION-X-US prototype combining 3D automated breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis
Authors
Benedikt Schaefgen
Joerg Heil
Richard G. Barr
Marcus Radicke
Aba Harcos
Christina Gomez
Anne Stieber
André Hennigs
Alexandra von Au
Julia Spratte
Geraldine Rauch
Joachim Rom
Florian Schütz
Christof Sohn
Michael Golatta
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5235-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

European Radiology 6/2018 Go to the issue

Magnetic Resonance

Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) MRI for differentiation of benign and malignant vertebral lesions

Magnetic Resonance

MR neurography in traumatic, non-obstetric paediatric brachial plexopathy

Paediatric

Gallbladder wall oedema and ascites are independent predictors of progression to hepatic veno-occlusive disease for children with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Interventional

Significance of hyperechoic marks observed during high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation of benign thyroid nodules

Breast

Prospective study aiming to compare 2D mammography and tomosynthesis + synthesized mammography in terms of cancer detection and recall. From double reading of 2D mammography to single reading of tomosynthesis

Paediatric

A simple method for bone age assessment: the capitohamate planimetry