Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제21권1호
  • /
  • Pages.25-32
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Automated Breast Ultrasound System for Breast Cancer Evaluation: Diagnostic Performance of the Two-View Scan Technique in Women with Small Breasts

  • Bo Ra Kwon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jung Min Chang (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Soo Yeon Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Su Hyun Lee (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Soo-Yeon Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • So Min Lee (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Nariya Cho (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Woo Kyung Moon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2019.04.17
  • 심사 : 2019.09.23
  • Published : 2020.01.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To comparatively evaluate the scan coverage and diagnostic performance of the two-view scan technique (2-VST) of the automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) versus the conventional three-view scan technique (3-VST) in women with small breasts. Materials and Methods: Between March 2016 and May 2017, 136 asymptomatic women with small breasts (bra cup size A) suitable for 2-VST were enrolled. Subsequently, 272 breasts were subjected to bilateral whole-breast ultrasound examinations using ABUS and the hand-held ultrasound system (HHUS). During ABUS image acquisition, one breast was scanned with 2-VST, while the other breast was scanned with 3-VST. In each breast, the breast coverage and visibility of the HHUS detected lesions on ABUS were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of ABUS were compared between 2-VST and 3-VST. Results: Among 136 breasts, eight cases of breast cancer were detected by 2-VST, and 10 cases of breast cancer were detected by 3-VST. The breast coverage was satisfactory in 94.1% and 91.9% of cases under 2-VST and 3-VST, respectively (p = 0.318). All HHUS-detected lesions were visible on the ABUS images regardless of the scan technique. The sensitivities and specificities were similar between 2-VST and 3-VST (100% [8/8] vs. 100% [10/10], and 97.7% [125/128] vs. 95.2% [120/126], respectively), with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Conclusion: 2-VST of ABUS achieved comparable scan coverage and diagnostic performance to that of conventional 3-VST in women with small breasts.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant (number 06-2016-1660) from the Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund.

References

  1. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M, et al.; ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-2163
  2. Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, et al.; J-START investigator groups. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387:341-348
  3. Shen S, Zhou Y, Xu Y, Zhang B, Duan X, Huang R, et al. A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer 2015;112:998-1004
  4. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006;241:355-365
  5. van Zelst JCM, Mann RM. Automated three-dimensional breast US for screening: technique, artifacts, and lesion characterization. Radiographics 2018;38:663-683
  6. Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW, Inciardi MF, Guingrich JA, Hashimoto BE, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology 2015;274:663-673
  7. Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Kim H, Chae EY, et al. 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 2014;15:9101-9105
  8. Giuliano V, Giuliano C. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 2013;37:480-486
  9. Vourtsis A, Kachulis A. 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 2018;28:592-601
  10. Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K. 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 2016;85:1554-1563
  11. Tozaki M, Isobe S, Yamaguchi M, Ogawa Y, Kohara M, Joo C, et al. Optimal scanning technique to cover the whole breast using an automated breast volume scanner. Jpn J Radiol 2010;28:325-328
  12. Rella R, Belli P, Giuliani M, Bufi E, Carlino G, Rinaldi P, et al. Automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in the screening and diagnostic setting: indications and practical use. Acad Radiol 2018;25:1457-1470
  13. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U, Wiskirchen J, Gyapong S, Soliman AA, et al. 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 2011;3:337-346
  14. Wojcinski S, Gyapong S, Farrokh A, Soergel P, Hillemanns P, Degenhardt F. Diagnostic performance and inter-observer concordance in lesion detection with the automated breast volume scanner (ABVS). BMC Med Imaging 2013;13:36
  15. Chen L, Chen Y, Diao XH, Fang L, Pang Y, Cheng AQ, et al. Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013;39:1735-1742
  16. Golatta M, Baggs C, Schweitzer-Martin M, Domschke C, Schott S, Harcos A, et al. Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;291:889-895
  17. Golatta M, Franz D, Harcos A, Junkermann H, Rauch G, Scharf A, et al. 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 2013;82:e332-e336
  18. Schmachtenberg C, Fischer T, Hamm B, Bick U. Diagnostic performance of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasonography with breast MRI as the gold standard. Acad Radiol 2017;24:954-961
  19. An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ. The image quality and lesion characterization of breast using automated whole-breast ultrasound: a comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:1232-1235
  20. Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S, Fischer T, Friese K, Reiser M. Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2009;71:109-115
  21. Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A. Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:873-878
  22. Van Zelst JC, Platel B, Karssemeijer N, Mann RM. Multiplanar reconstructions of 3D automated breast ultrasound improve lesion differentiation by radiologists. Acad Radiol 2015;22:1489-1496