Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 5/2020

01-05-2020 | Ultrasound | Gynecologic Oncology

Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?

Authors: Burçin Tutar, Gül Esen Icten, Nilgün Guldogan, Halil Kara, Akif Enes Arıkan, Onur Tutar, Cihan Uras

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 5/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) with hand-held bilateral whole breast ultrasound (HHUS) prospectively in regards to patient workflow, woman preference, efficacy in lesion detection, and characterization.

Materials and methods

Supplemental screening was performed with both ABVS and HHUS to 345 women with dense breasts and negative mammograms. Acquisition and evaluation times were recorded. Lesions were classified according to BIRADS US criteria and compared one to one. Women were recalled for a secondary HHUS examination if ABVS showed any additional lesions. Findings were compared based on biopsy results and/or 36–48 months of follow-up.

Results

Findings could be compared for 340 women. There were two carcinomas which were detected by both methods, with no interval cancers in the follow-up period. Recall rate was 46/340 (13.05%) for ABVS and 4/340 (1.18%) for HHUS. ABVS recalls decreased with experience. HHUS had more true negative (BIRADS 1–2) results, while ABVS had more false positive ones (p < 0.001). Positive predictive value was 4.17% for ABVS and 50% for HHUS. ABVS overdiagnosed shadowings (p < 0.01), distortions (p < 0.034), and irregular nodules (p < 0.001) in comparison to HHUS. At ABVS, 10.6% of women experienced severe pain. 59.7% stated that they would choose HHUS if they had the chance.

Conclusion

ABVS is as good as HHUS in lesion detection. However, the recall rate is higher and positive predictive value is lower with ABVS, which could result in more follow-ups, and more anxiety for the women. More than 50% women stated they would prefer HHUS if they were given the chance.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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 225:165–175CrossRef 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 225:165–175CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM et al (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09–41. Radiology 265:1CrossRef Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM et al (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09–41. Radiology 265:1CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormaek JB (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:18CrossRef Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormaek JB (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:18CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Wang FL, Chen F, Yin H et al (2013) Effects of age, breast density and volume on breast cancer diagnosis: a retrospective comparison of sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography in China’s rural areas. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14:2277–2282CrossRef Wang FL, Chen F, Yin H et al (2013) Effects of age, breast density and volume on breast cancer diagnosis: a retrospective comparison of sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography in China’s rural areas. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14:2277–2282CrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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 29:361–365CrossRef 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 29:361–365CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Berg WA (2009) Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:390–399CrossRef Berg WA (2009) Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:390–399CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C et al (2015) Potential impact of legislation mandating breast density notification: benefits, harms and cost effectiveness of supplemental ultrasound screening. Ann Intern Med 162(3):157–166CrossRef Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C et al (2015) Potential impact of legislation mandating breast density notification: benefits, harms and cost effectiveness of supplemental ultrasound screening. Ann Intern Med 162(3):157–166CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP et al (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the US preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 164(4):268–278CrossRef Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP et al (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the US preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 164(4):268–278CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Jiang WW, Cheng L, Li AH et al (2015) A novel breast ultrasound system for providing coronal images: systems development and feasibility study. Ultrasonics 56:427–434CrossRef Jiang WW, Cheng L, Li AH et al (2015) A novel breast ultrasound system for providing coronal images: systems development and feasibility study. Ultrasonics 56:427–434CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Singh S, Tourassi GD, Baker JA et al (2008) Automated breast mass detection in 3D reconstructed tomosynthesis volumes: a featureless approach. Med Phys 35:3626–3636CrossRef Singh S, Tourassi GD, Baker JA et al (2008) Automated breast mass detection in 3D reconstructed tomosynthesis volumes: a featureless approach. Med Phys 35:3626–3636CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L et al (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 85:1554–1563CrossRef Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L et al (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 85:1554–1563CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kim YW, Kim SK, Youn HJ et al (2013) The clinical utility of automated breast volume scanner: a pilot study of 139 cases. J Breast Cancer 16(3):329–334CrossRef Kim YW, Kim SK, Youn HJ et al (2013) The clinical utility of automated breast volume scanner: a pilot study of 139 cases. J Breast Cancer 16(3):329–334CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kaplan SS (2014) Automated whole breast ultrasound. Radiol Clin N Am 52:539–546CrossRef Kaplan SS (2014) Automated whole breast ultrasound. Radiol Clin N Am 52:539–546CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW (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(3):663–673CrossRef Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW (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(3):663–673CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB et al (2015) Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiol 56(4):404–412CrossRef Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB et al (2015) Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiol 56(4):404–412CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Grubstein A, Rapson Y, Gadiel I et al (2017) Analysis of false-negative readings of automated breast ultrasound studies. J Clin Ultrasound 45(5):245–251CrossRef Grubstein A, Rapson Y, Gadiel I et al (2017) Analysis of false-negative readings of automated breast ultrasound studies. J Clin Ultrasound 45(5):245–251CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Zhan J, Diao XH, Pang Y et al (2017) Is there an extraclinical value of automated breast volume scanner compared with hand-held ultrasound?A pilot study. Medicine 96(37):e7765CrossRef Zhan J, Diao XH, Pang Y et al (2017) Is there an extraclinical value of automated breast volume scanner compared with hand-held ultrasound?A pilot study. Medicine 96(37):e7765CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH (2015) Current status of automated breast ultrasonography. Ultrasonography 34(3):165–172CrossRef Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH (2015) Current status of automated breast ultrasonography. Ultrasonography 34(3):165–172CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Vourtsis A, Kachulis A (2018) 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. Eur Radiol 28:592–601CrossRef Vourtsis A, Kachulis A (2018) 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. Eur Radiol 28:592–601CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mundinger A (2016) 3D supine automated ultrasound (SAUS, ABUS, ABVS) for supplemental screening women with dense breasts. J Breast Health 12:52–55CrossRef Mundinger A (2016) 3D supine automated ultrasound (SAUS, ABUS, ABVS) for supplemental screening women with dense breasts. J Breast Health 12:52–55CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N et al (2011) Breast cancers initially detected by hand-held ultrasound: detection performance of radiologists using automated breast ultrasound data. Acta Radiol 52(1):8–14CrossRef Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N et al (2011) Breast cancers initially detected by hand-held ultrasound: detection performance of radiologists using automated breast ultrasound data. Acta Radiol 52(1):8–14CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Giuliano V, Giuliano C (2013) Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 37(3):480–486CrossRef Giuliano V, Giuliano C (2013) Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 37(3):480–486CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Arleo EK, Saleh M, Ionescu D et al (2014) Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first quarter experience. Clin Imaging 38:439–444CrossRef Arleo EK, Saleh M, Ionescu D et al (2014) Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first quarter experience. Clin Imaging 38:439–444CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH et al (2014) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning and hand- held ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer: an analysis of 5,566 patient evaluations. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15:9101–9105CrossRef Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH et al (2014) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning and hand- held ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer: an analysis of 5,566 patient evaluations. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15:9101–9105CrossRef
26.
go back to reference 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 82(8):e332–e336CrossRef 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 82(8):e332–e336CrossRef
27.
go back to reference 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 78:99–103CrossRef 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 78:99–103CrossRef
28.
go back to reference 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 Women’s Health 3:337–346CrossRef 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 Women’s Health 3:337–346CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS et al (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742CrossRef Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS et al (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Zhang Q, Hu B, Hu B, Li WB (2012) Detection of breast lesions using an automated breast volume scanner system. J Int Med Res 40:300–306CrossRef Zhang Q, Hu B, Hu B, Li WB (2012) Detection of breast lesions using an automated breast volume scanner system. J Int Med Res 40:300–306CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Xiao YM, Chen ZH, Zhou QC et al (2015) The efficacy of automated breast volume scanning over conventional ultrasonog- raphy among patients with breast lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 131:293–296CrossRef Xiao YM, Chen ZH, Zhou QC et al (2015) The efficacy of automated breast volume scanning over conventional ultrasonog- raphy among patients with breast lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 131:293–296CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Wang HY, Jiang YX, Zhu QL et al (2012) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between auto- matically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol 81:3190–3200CrossRef Wang HY, Jiang YX, Zhu QL et al (2012) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between auto- matically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol 81:3190–3200CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Wang ZL, Xu JH, Li JL et al (2012) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med 117:1287–1293CrossRef Wang ZL, Xu JH, Li JL et al (2012) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med 117:1287–1293CrossRef
34.
go back to reference 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 14:154–163CrossRef 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 14:154–163CrossRef
35.
go back to reference 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-positive cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1–10CrossRef 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-positive cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1–10CrossRef
36.
go back to reference 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 197:747–754CrossRef 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 197:747–754CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?
Authors
Burçin Tutar
Gül Esen Icten
Nilgün Guldogan
Halil Kara
Akif Enes Arıkan
Onur Tutar
Cihan Uras
Publication date
01-05-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 5/2020 Go to the issue