Comparison characteristic visibility of the lesions with automated whole breast ultrasound and handheld breast ultrasound in screening situation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46475/asean-jr.v24i3.867Keywords:
Automatic whole breast ultrasound, Breast cancer, Handheld breast ultrasound, ScreeningAbstract
Background: Screening mammography and additional ultrasound are effective in detecting occult cancer. We know that handheld breast ultrasound (HHUS) depends on the operator. In comparison, automated whole breast ultrasound (ABUS) decreases these disadvantages of ultrasound procedures and can increase its sensitivity to cancer detection rates, but the results showed such studies, especially masses’ characteristics, are different. Our study wants to evaluate the features of the lesions in all aspects of the masses by using ABUS compared to HHUS to increase overall interpretation confidence.
Objective: Comparison of visible breast lesions between ABUS and HHUS.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted with 168 screening mammography cases, the undergoing ABUS and HHUS interpreted as the detected lesion, mass characteristic and BI-RADS between October 2017 to May 2018. The investigator reviewed the pathologic or the 2-year follow-up from hand-held ultrasound results. The agreement measurements were assessed, using SD, ICC, percent agreement and Cohen kappa coefficient.
Results: Comparison of the mass's details between two radiologists by using ABUS, ICCs for the location and individual size of the lesion had good reliability. Localization (κ = 0.81) and BI-RADS (κ = 0.82) showed almost perfect agreement showing substantial agreement for mass margin (κ = 0.78), moderate agreement for mass shape (κ = 0.48) as well as 95% agreement for mass orientation. Intra-rater reliability between two modalities also revealed concordance in both radiologists in important ways for breast mass interpretation.
Conclusion: ABUS can detect lesions, give accurate locations, certain mass size and a few characteristics, is acceptable for screening and monitor detected lesions.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Cancer Prevention and Control. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division. Breast cancer statistic [Internet]. 2023 Jun 8 [cited 2023 Oct 7]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/
Virani S, Bilheem S, Chansaard W, Chitapanarux I, Daoprasert K, Khuanchana S, et al. National and subnational population-based incidence of cancer in Thailand: assessing cancers with the highest burdens. Cancers (Basel) 2017;9:108. doi: 10.3390/cancers9080108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers9080108
Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Gröntoft O, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985;1:829-32. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92204-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92204-4
Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;69:349-55.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. 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 2002;225:165-75. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2251011667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
D'orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, editors. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system; mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, follow-up and outcome monitoring, data dictionary. 5 th ed. Reston (FL) : ACR American College of Radiology; 2013.
Winkler NS, Raza S, Mackesy M, Birdwell RL. Breast density: clinical implications and assessment methods. Radiographics 2015;35:316-24. doi: 10.1148/rg.352140134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.352140134
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207:191-9. doi: 10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530316
Berg WA, Gilbreath PL. Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology 2000;214:59-66. doi: 10.1148/radiology.214.1. r00ja2559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja2559
Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:921-7. doi: 10.2214/ajr.173.4.10511149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.4.10511149
Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-30. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19950815)76:4<626: aid-cncr2820760413>3.0.co;2-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19950815)76:4<626::AID-CNCR2820760413>3.0.CO;2-Z
Nazari SS, Mukherjee P. An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2018;25:259-67. doi: 10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5
Park B, Cho HM, Lee EH, Song S, Suh M, Choi KS, et al. Does breast density measured through population-based screening independently increase breast cancer risk in Asian females? Clin Epidemiol 2017; 10:61-70. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S144918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S144918
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-63. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.18.2151
Kaplan SS. Automated whole breast ultrasound. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:539-46. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2014.01.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2014.01.002
Brem RF, Rapelyea JA, Torrente J, Kann M, Coffey C, Lieberman J, et al. Interpretation time of 3D automated breast ultrasound (AWUS). AJR Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. 2012 May [cited 2023 Oct 7]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296032869_Interpretation_Time_of_3D_ Automated_Breast_Ultrasound.
Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010;20:734-42. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1588-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1588-y
Kelly KM, Dean J, Lee SJ, Comulada WS. Breast cancer detection: radiologists' performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2010;20:2557-64. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1844-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1844-1
Brem RF, Tabár 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;274:663-73. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132832
Giger ML, Miller DP, Brown JB, Inciardi MF, Metz CE, Jiang Y, et al. Clinical reader study examining the performance of mammography and automatic breast ultrasound in breast cancer screening. Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 25 - November 30, 2012, Chicago IL. [Internet] 2012 [cited 2023 Oct 7] Available from: http://archive.rsna.org/2012/12029472.html
Chang JM, Cha JH, Park JS, Kim SJ, Moon WK. Automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS): reproducibility of mass localization, size measurement, and characterization on serial examinations. Acta Radiol 2015;56:1163-70. doi: 10.1177/0284185114551565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185114551565
Kuzmiak CM, Ko EY, Tuttle LA, Steed D, Zeng D, Yoon SC. Whole breast ultrasound: comparison of the visibility of suspicious lesions with automated breast volumetric scanning versus hand-held breast ultrasound. Acad Radiol 2015;22:870-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.03.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2015.03.006
Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, Park JH, Lee KE, Kim JH. Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(:747-54. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5841. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5841
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;84:1232-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.04.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.04.007
Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG, Choi JJ, Lee JH, Song BJ, et al. Radiologists' performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:154-63. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.154
Hellgren R, Dickman P, Leifland K, Saracco A, Hall P, Celebioglu F. Comparison of handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound in women recalled after mammography screening. Acta Radiol 2017;58:515-20. doi: 10.1177/0284185116665421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185116665421
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Bassett LW. Imaging of breast masses. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:669-91, vii-viii. doi: 10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70193-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70193-7
Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M, Schwab SA, Uder M, Schulz-Wendtland R, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification--a pilot study. Rofo 2008;180:804-8. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1027563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1027563
Zhang J, Lai XJ, Zhu QL, Wang HY, Jiang YX, Liu H, et al. Interobserver agreement for sonograms of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2179-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.043
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The ASEAN Journal of Radiology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Disclosure Forms and Copyright Agreements
All authors listed on the manuscript must complete both the electronic copyright agreement. (in the case of acceptance)
