Automatic Breast Volume Scanner versus Handheld Ultrasound in Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Automated Breast Volume Scanner Is More Valuable Than Hand-Held Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Small Breast cancer: An Analysis of 725 Patients With 912 Lesions Evaluations

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS). From January 2015 to May 2019, a total of 912 breast lesions in 725 consecutive patients were included in this study. κ statistics were calculated to identify interobserver agreement of ABVS and HHUS. The diagnostic performance for ABVS and HHUS was expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval, sensitivity, and specificity. The sensitivities of ABVS and HHUS were 95.95% and 93.69%, and the specificities were 85.47% and 81.20%, respectively. A difference that nearly reached statistical significance was observed in sensitivities between ABVS and HHUS (P = 0.0525). The specificity of ABVS was significantly higher than that of HHUS (P = 0.006). When lesions were classified according to their maximum diameter, the sensitivity and specificity of ABVS were significantly higher than HHUS for lesions ≤20 mm, while they made no statistical significance between ABVS and HHUS for lesions >20 mm. The interobserver agreement for ABVS was better than that of HHUS. Automated breast volume scanner was more valuable than HHUS in diagnosing breast cancer, especially for lesions ≤20 mm, and it could be a valuable diagnostic tool for breast cancer.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation of Automated Breast US

Dense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. Patients with dense breast tissue are more likely to present with interval cancers and higher-stage disease. Successful breast cancer screening outcomes rely on detection of early-stage breast cancers; therefore, several supplemental screening modalities have been developed to improve cancer detection in dense breast tissue. US is the most widely used supplemental screening modality worldwide and has been proven to demonstrate additional mammographically occult cancers that are predominantly invasive and node negative. According to the American College of Radiology, intermediate-risk women with dense breast tissue may benefit from adjunctive screening US due to the limitations of mammography. Several studies have demonstrated handheld US (HHUS) and automated breast US (AUS) to be comparable in the screening setting. The advantages of AUS over HHUS include lack of operator dependence and a formal training requirement, image reproducibility, and ability for temporal comparison. However, AUS exhibits unique features that can result in high false-positive rates and long interpretation times for new users. Familiarity with the common appearance of benign mammographic findings and artifacts, technical challenges, and unique AUS features is essential for fast, efficient, and accurate interpretation. The goals of this article are to (a) examine the role of AUS as a supplemental screening modality and (b) review the pearls and pitfalls of AUS interpretation. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Diagnostic Performance of Prototype Handheld Ultrasound According to the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS for Breast Ultrasound Compared with Automated Breast Ultrasound among Females with Positive Lumps

(1) Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of prototype handheld ultrasound compared to automated breast ultrasound, according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS categorization, among females with positive lumps. (2) Methods: A total of 1004 lesions in 162 participants who underwent both prototype handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound were included. Two radiologists and a sonographer independently evaluated the sonographic features of each lesion according to the fifth BI-RADS edition. The kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated for each BI-RADS descriptor and final assessment category. The cross-tabulation was performed to see whether there were differences between the ABUS and prototype HHUS results. Specificity and sensitivity were evaluated and compared using the McNamar test. (3) Results: ABUS and prototype HHUS observers found the same number of breast lesions in the 324 breasts of the 162 respondents. There was no significant difference in the mean lesion size, with a maximum mean length dimension of 0.48 ± 0.33 cm. The assessment of the lesion’s shape, orientation, margin, echo pattern, posterior acoustic features, and calcification was obtained with good to excellent agreements between ABUS and prototype HHUS observers (κ = 0.70–1.0). There was absolutely no significant difference between ABUS and prototype HHUS in assessment of lesion except for lesion orientation p = 0.00. Diagnostic accuracy (99.8% and 97.7–98.9%), sensitivity (99.5% and 98.0–99.0%), specificity (99.8% and 99.6–99.8%), positive predictive value (98.1% and 90.3–96.2%), negative predictive value (90.0% and 84.4–88.7%), and areas under the curve (0.98 and 0.83–0.92; p < 0.05) were not significantly different between ABUS and prototype HHUS observers. (4) Conclusion: According to the fifth BI-RADS edition, automated breast ultrasound is not statistically significantly different from prototype handheld ultrasound with regard to interobserver variability and diagnostic performance.

Value of multimodal imaging in the diagnosis of breast sclerosing adenosis associated with malignant lesions

AIM

To explore the diagnostic value of multimodal imaging techniques, including automatic breast volume scanner (ABVS), mammography (MG), and magnetic resonance (MRI) in breast sclerosing adenosis (SA) associated with malignant lesions.

METHODS

From January 2018 to October 2020, 76 patients (88 lesions) with pathologically confirmed as SA associated with malignant or benign lesions were retrospective analyzed. All patients completed ABVS examination, 58 patients (67 lesions) with MG and 50 patients (62 lesions) with MRI were also completed before biopsy or surgical excision, of which, six patients (eight lesions) diagnosed as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 by all imaging examinations underwent surgical excision without biopsy, other 70 patients (80 lesions) with BI-RADS category 4 or above by any imaging examination completed biopsy, including 65 patients (75 lesions) were further surgical excised and the other five patients (five lesions) were just followed up. All lesions were retrospectively described and classified, and were divided into benign group and malignant group according to their pathological results. Image features of different examination methods between the two groups were compared and analyzed. A ROC curve was established using the sensitivity of BI-RADS categories to predict malignant lesions in different imaging techniques as the ordinate and 1-specificity as the abscissa.

RESULTS

88 lesions including 26 purely SA and 45 SA associated with benign lesions were classified as benign group, and the remaining 17 SA associated with malignant lesions were classified as malignant group. On ABVS, 40 mass lesions, their heterogeneous echo, not circumscribed margin and coronal convergence signs were statistically significant for malignant lesions (p < .05), but the remain 48 nonmass lesions lack specific sonographic features. On MG, 12 showed negative results, 55 showed with microcalcification, mass, structural distortion, and asymmetric density shadow, of which 11 lesions had the above two signs at the same time, but only microcalcification had statistical difference between the two groups. 35 mass enhanced lesions and 27 nonmass enhanced lesions on MRI, but there were no significant difference between their pathological results. Time signal intensity curves showed no differences, but ADC value <1.10 × 10^-3  mm² /s is more significant in malignant lesions (p < .05). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of BI-RADS classification of ABVS, MG, and MRI in the diagnosis of malignant lesions were 0.611, 0.474, and 0.751, respectively, and the AUC of the combined diagnosis of the three was 0.761.

CONCLUSION

Mass lesions with heterogeneous echo, not circumscribed margin and coronal convergence sign on ABVS, microcalcification on MG and the ADC value <1.10 × 10^-3  mm² /s on MRI are significant signs for SA associated with malignant lesions. The combined diagnosis of the three methods was the highest, and the following were MRI, ABVS, and MG. Therefore, be cognizant of significant characteristics in SA associated with malignancy showed in different imaging examinations can improve the preoperative evaluation of SA and better provide basis for subsequent clinical decision-making.

Artificial intelligence breast ultrasound and handheld ultrasound in the BI-RADS categorization of breast lesions: A pilot head to head comparison study in screening program

Background

Artificial intelligence breast ultrasound diagnostic system (AIBUS) has been introduced as an alternative approach for handheld ultrasound (HHUS), while their results in BI-RADS categorization has not been compared.

Methods

This pilot study was based on a screening program conducted from May 2020 to October 2020 in southeast China. All the participants who received both HHUS and AIBUS were included in the study (N = 344). The ultrasound videos after AIBUS scanning were independently watched by a senior radiologist and a junior radiologist. Agreement rate and weighted Kappa value were used to compare their results in BI-RADS categorization with HHUS.

Results

The detection rate of breast nodules by HHUS was 14.83%, while the detection rates were 34.01% for AIBUS videos watched by a senior radiologist and 35.76% when watched by a junior radiologist. After AIBUS scanning, the weighted Kappa value for BI-RADS categorization between videos watched by senior radiologists and HHUS was 0.497 (p < 0.001) with an agreement rate of 78.8%, indicating its potential use in breast cancer screening. However, the Kappa value of AIBUS videos watched by junior radiologist was 0.39, when comparing to HHUS.

Conclusion

AIBUS breast scan can obtain relatively clear images and detect more breast nodules. The results of AIBUS scanning watched by senior radiologists are moderately consistent with HHUS and might be used in screening practice, especially in primary health care with limited numbers of radiologists.

Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Volume Scanner Compared to Handheld Ultrasound on Different Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of the automatic breast volume scanner (ABVS) against the handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.

METHODS

A systematic search and review of studies involving ABVS and HHUS for breast cancer screening were performed. The search involved the data taken from Scopus, PubMed, and science direct databases and was conducted between the year 2011 to 2020. The prospective method was used in determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria while the evidence level was determined using the BI-RADS categories for diagnostic studies. In addition, the parameters of specificity, mean age, sensitivity, tumor number, and diagnostic accuracy of the ABVS and HHUS were summarized.

RESULTS

No systematic review or randomized controlled trial were identified in the systematic search while one cross-sectional study, eight retrospective studies, and 10 prospective studies were found. Sufficient follow-up of the subjects with benign and malignant findings were made only in 10 studies, in which only two had used ABVS and HHUS after performing mammographic screening and MRI. Analysis was made of 21 studies, which included 5448 lesions (4074 benign and 1374 malignant) taken from 6009 patients. The range of sensitivity was (0.72-1.0) for ABVS and (0.62-1.0) for HHUS; the specificity range was (0.52-0.98)% for ABVS and (0.49-0.99)% for HHUS. The accuracy range among the 11 studies was (80-99)% and (59-98)% for the HHUS and ABVS, respectively. The identified tumors had a mean size of 2.1 cm, and the detected cancers had a mean percentage of 94% (81-100)% in comparison to the non-cancer in all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence available in the literature points to the fact that the diagnostic performance of both ABVS and HHUS are similar with reference to the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions.

A Prospective Study of Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening of Women with Dense Breasts in a Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-based Practice

OBJECTIVE

To assess prospectively the interpretative performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as a supplemental screening after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or as a standalone screening of women with dense breast tissue.

METHODS

Under an IRB-approved protocol (written consent required), women with dense breasts prospectively underwent concurrent baseline DBT and ABUS screening. Examinations were independently evaluated, in opposite order, by two of seven Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists, with the primary radiologist arbitrating disagreements and making clinical management recommendations. We report results for 1111 screening examinations (598 first year and 513 second year) for which all diagnostic workups are complete. Imaging was also retrospectively reviewed for all cancers. Statistical assessments used a 0.05 significance level and accounted for correlation between participants' examinations.

RESULTS

Of 1111 women screened, primary radiologists initially "recalled" based on DBT alone (6.6%, 73/1111, CI: 5.2%-8.2%), of which 20 were biopsied, yielding 6/8 total cancers. Automated breast ultrasound increased recalls overall to 14.4% (160/1111, CI: 12.4%-16.6%), with 27 total biopsies, yielding 1 additional cancer. Double reading of DBT alone increased the recall rate to 10.7% (119/1111), with 21 biopsies, with no improvement in cancer detection. Double reading ABUS increased the recall rate to 15.2% (169/1111, CI: 13.2%-17.5%) of women, of whom 22 were biopsied, yielding the detection of 7 cancers, including one seen only on double reading ABUS. Inter-radiologist agreement was similar for recall recommendations from DBT (κ = 0.24, CI: 0.14-0.34) and ABUS (κ = 0.23, CI: 0.15-0.32). Integrated assessments from both readers resulted in a recall rate of 15.1% (168/1111, CI: 13.1%-17.4%).

CONCLUSION

Supplemental or standalone ABUS screening detected cancers not seen on DBT, but substantially increased noncancer recall rates.

Screening Breast Ultrasound Using Handheld or Automated Technique in Women with Dense Breasts

In women with dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense), adding screening ultrasound to mammography increases detection of node-negative invasive breast cancer. Similar incremental cancer detection rates averaging 2.1-2.7 per 1000 have been observed for physician- and technologist-performed handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and automated ultrasound (AUS). Adding screening ultrasound (US) for women with dense breasts significantly reduces interval cancer rates. Training is critical before interpreting examinations for both modalities, and a learning curve to achieve optimal performance has been observed. On average, about 3% of women will be recommended for biopsy on the prevalence round because of screening US, with a wide range of 2%-30% malignancy rates for suspicious findings seen only on US. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions identified only on screening HHUS can be safely followed at 1 year rather than 6 months. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis software can augment performance of AUS and HHUS; ongoing research on machine learning and deep learning algorithms will likely improve outcomes and workflow with screening US.