Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in assessing breast cancer size: A comparison with conventional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare automated breast volume scanner (ABVS), ultrasound (US) and MRI in measuring breast cancer size, and evaluate the agreement between ABVS and US in assessing lesion location and sonographic features.

Methods

We retrospectively included 98 women with 100 index cancers who had undergone US and ABVS followed by 1.5T MRI. Images were interpreted by a pool of readers reporting lesion size, location and breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) features. Bland-Altman analysis (with logarithmic data transformation), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen’s kappa statistic were used for statistical analysis.

Results

MRI showed the best absolute agreement with histology in measuring cancer size (ICC 0.93), with LOA comparable to those of ABVS (0.63–1.99 vs. 0.52–1.73, respectively). Though ABVS and US had highly concordant measurements (ICC 0.95), ABVS showed better agreement with histology (LOA 0.52–1.73 vs. 0.45–1.86, respectively), corresponding to a higher ICC (0.85 vs. 0.75, respectively). Except for posterior features (k=0.39), the agreement between US and ABVS in attributing site and BI-RADS features ranged from substantial to almost perfect (k=0.68–0.85).

Conclusions

ABVS performs better than US and approaches MRI in predicting breast cancer size. ABVS performs comparably to US in sonographic assessment of lesions.

Key Points

• ABVS approaches MRI in predicting breast cancer size.

• ABVS is equivalent to US in localising and characterising breast cancer.

• ABVS is more accurate than US in assessing breast cancer size.

• ABVS has the potential to replace US in breast cancer staging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (2010) AJCC Cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ozsaran Z, Alanyali SD (2013) Staging of Breast Cancer. In: Haydaroglu A, Ozyigit G (eds) Principles and Practice of Modern Radiotherapy Techniques in Breast Cancer. Springer, New York, pp 13–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al (2015) Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26:v8–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL et al (2003) Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol 48:285–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Katz B, Raker C, Edmonson D, Gass J, Stuckey A, Rizack T (2017) Predicting Breast Tumor Size for Pre-operative Planning: Which Imaging Modality is Best? Breast J 23:52–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fornage BD, Toubas O, Morel M (1987) Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer 60:765–771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ramirez SI, Scholle M, Buckmaster J, Paley RH, Kowdley GC (2012) Breast cancer tumor size assessment with mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging at a community based multidisciplinary breast center. Am Surg 78:440–446

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liberman L (2005) Assessment of Extent of Disease Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In: Morris EA, Liberman L (eds) Breast MRI: Diagnosis and Intervention. Springer, New York, pp 200–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB et al (1996) Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37:1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2013) Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med 118:1119–1136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gruber IV, Rueckert M, Kagan KO et al (2013) Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer 13:328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R et al (1995) Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 197:743–747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF, Giuliano AE (2009) MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg 75:970–975

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shoma A, Moutamed A, Ameen M, Abdelwahab A (2006) Ultrasound for accurate measurement of invasive breast cancer tumor size. Breast J 12:252–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM (2001) Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg 182:351–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang WT, Lam WW, Cheung H, Suen M, King WW, Metreweli C (1997) Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med 16:791–797

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Förnvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brem RF, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman J, Torrente J (2015) Screening breast ultrasound: past, present, and future. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:234–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaplan SS (2014) Automated whole breast ultrasound. Radiol Clin North Am 52:539–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Girometti R, Zanotel M, Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C (2017) Comparison between automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) versus hand-held ultrasound as a second look procedure after magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 27:3767–3775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K (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 85:1554–1563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW et al (2015) Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology 274:663–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang JM, Cha JH, Park JS, Kim SJ, Moon WK (2015) Automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS): reproducibility of mass localization, size measurement, and characterization on serial examinations. Acta Radiol 56:1163–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, Park JH, Lee KE, Kim JH (2011) Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:747–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Xu C, Wei S, Xie Y, Guan X, Yang B (2016) Three-Dimensional Assessment of Automated Breast Volume Scanner Compared with Handheld Ultrasound in Pre-Operative Breast Invasive Ductal Carcinomas: A Pilot Study of 51 Cases. Ultrasound Med Biol 42:2089–2096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li N, Jiang YX, Zhu QL et al (2013) Accuracy of an automated breast volume ultrasound system for assessment of the pre-operative extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: comparison with a conventional handheld ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:2255–2263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tozaki M, Fukuma E (2010) Accuracy of determining preoperative cancer extent measured by automated breast ultrasonography. Jpn J Radiol 28:771–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB et al (2013) ACR BIRADS ® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  32. Giavarina D (2015) Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med 25:141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA (1992) Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 135:571–578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim H, Cha JH, Oh HY, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Chae EY (2014) Comparison of conventional and automated breast volume ultrasound in the description and characterization of solid breast masses based on BI-RADS features. Breast Cancer 21:423–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A (2012) Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 81:873–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lai HW, Chen DR, Wu YC et al (2015) Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Sonography in the Prediction of Breast Cancer Tumor Size: A Concordance Analysis with Histopathologically Determined Tumor Size. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3816–3823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dummin LJ, Cox M, Plant L (2007) Prediction of breast tumor size by mammography and sonography--A breast screen experience. Breast 16:38–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Meng Z, Chen C, Zhu Y et al (2015) Diagnostic performance of the automated breast volume scanner: a systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions. Eur Radiol 25:3638–3647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, p.le S. Maria della Misericordia 15, 33100, Udine, Italy

    Rossano Girometti, Martina Zanotel, Viviana Londero, Anna Linda, Michele Lorenzon & Chiara Zuiani

Authors
  1. Rossano Girometti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martina Zanotel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Viviana Londero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna Linda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michele Lorenzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chiara Zuiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Zanotel.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Chiara Zuiani.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors, Rossano Girometti, has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Girometti, R., Zanotel, M., Londero, V. et al. Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in assessing breast cancer size: A comparison with conventional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 28, 1000–1008 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5074-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5074-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation