Clinical Evaluation of a 3-D Automatic Annotation Method for Breast Ultrasound Imaging

Improving Lesion Location Reproducibility in Handheld Breast Ultrasound

Interoperator variability in the reproducibility of breast lesions found by handheld ultrasound (HHUS) can significantly interfere with clinical care. This study analyzed the features associated with breast mass position differences during HHUS. The ability of operators to reproduce the position of small masses and the time required to generate annotations with and without a computer-assisted scanning device (DEVICE) were also evaluated. This prospective study included 28 patients with 34 benign or probably benign small breast masses. Two operators generated manual and automated position annotations for each mass. The probe and body positions were systematically varied during scanning with the DEVICE, and the features describing mass movement were used in three logistic regression models trained to discriminate small from large breast mass displacements (cutoff: 10 mm). All models successfully discriminated small from large breast mass displacements (areas under the curve: 0.78 to 0.82). The interoperator localization precision was 6.6 ± 2.8 mm with DEVICE guidance and 19.9 ± 16.1 mm with manual annotations. Computer-assisted scanning reduced the time to annotate and reidentify a mass by 33 and 46 s on average, respectively. The results demonstrated that breast mass location reproducibility and exam efficiency improved by controlling operator actionable features with computer-assisted HHUS.

Efficiency and impact factors of anatomical intelligence for breast and hand-held ultrasound in lesion detection

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficiency and impact factors of anatomical intelligence for breast (AI-Breast) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in lesion detection.

METHODS

A total of 172 outpatient women were randomly selected, underwent AI-Breast ultrasound (Group AI) once and HHUS twice. HHUS was performed by breast imaging radiologists (Group A) and general radiologists (Group B). For the AI-Breast examination, a trained technician performed the whole-breast scan and data acquisition, while other general radiologists performed image interpretation. The examination time and lesion detection rate were recorded. The impact factors for breast lesion detection, including breast cup size, number of lesions, and benign or malignant lesions were analyzed.

RESULTS

The detection rates of Group AI, A, and B were 92.8 ± 17.0%, 95.0 ± 13.6%, and 85.0 ± 22.9%, respectively. Comparable lesion detection rates were observed in Group AI and Group A (P > 0.05), but a significantly lower lesion detection rate was observed in Group B compared to the other two (both P < 0.05). Regarding missed diagnosis rates of malignant lesions, comparable performance was observed in Group AI, Group A, and Group B (8% vs. 4% vs. 14%, all P > 0.05). Scan times of Groups AI, A, and B were 262.15 ± 40.4 s, 237.5 ± 110.3 s, 281.2 ± 86.1 s, respectively. The scan time of Group AI was significantly higher than Group A (P < 0.01), but was slightly lower than Group B (P > 0.05). We found a strong linear correlation between scan time and cup size in Group AI (r = 0.745). No impacts of cup size and number of lesions were found on the lesion detection rate in Group AI (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

With the assist of AI-Breast system, the lesion detection rate of AI-Breast ultrasound was comparable to that of a breast imaging radiologist and superior to that of the general radiologist. AI-Breast ultrasound may be used as a potential approach for breast lesions surveillance.