Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?
To assess feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of a novel hand-held ultrasound (US) method for breast density assessment that measures the speed of sound (SoS), in comparison to the ACR mammographic (MG) categories.
ACR-MG density (a=fatty to d=extremely dense) and SoS-US were assessed in the retromamillary, inner and outer segments of 106 women by two radiographers. A conventional US system was used for SoS-US. A reflector served as timing reference for US signals transmitted through the breasts. Four blinded readers assessed average SoS (m/s), ΔSoS (segment-variation SoS; m/s) and the ACR-MG density. The highest SoS and ΔSoS values of the three segments were used for MG-ACR whole breast comparison.
SoS-US breasts were examined in <2 min. Mean SoS values of densities a-d were 1,421 m/s (SD 14), 1,432 m/s (SD 17), 1,448 m/s (SD 20) and 1,500 m/s (SD 31), with significant differences between all groups (p<0.001). The SoS-US comfort scores and inter-reader agreement were significantly better than those for MG (1.05 vs. 2.05 and 0.982 vs. 0.774; respectively). A strong segment correlation between SoS and ACR-MG breast density was evident (rs=0.622, p=<0.001) and increased for full breast classification (rs=0.746, p=<0.001). SoS-US allowed diagnosis of dense breasts (ACR c and d) with sensitivity 86.2 %, specificity 85.2 % and AUC 0.887.
Using hand-held SoS-US, radiographers measured breast density without discomfort, readers evaluated measurements with high inter-reader agreement, and SoS-US correlated significantly with ACR-MG breast-density categories.
• The novel speed-of-sound ultrasound correlated significantly with mammographic ACR breast density categories.
• Radiographers measured breast density without women discomfort or radiation.
• SoS-US can be implemented on a standard US machine.
• SoS-US shows potential for a quantifiable, cost-effective assessment of breast density.
KeywordsUltrasonography Mammography Breast Breast density Breast neoplasms
American College of Radiology
Area under the curve
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System
Body mass index
Interclass correlation coefficient
Picture Archiving and Communication System
Receiver operating characteristic
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients
Speed of sound
Segment-variation of SoS, heterogeneity
The authors thank Milka Cebic-Paunovic, Radiology Technologist and Flora Kelecsenyi, RT for their valuable contributions.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. med. Marga B. Rominger.
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 has significant statistical expertise.
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• case-control study
• performed at one institution
- 10.Sickles E, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
- 18.Sanabria SJ, Goksel O (2016) Hand-held medical ultrasound apparatus and system for determining a tomographic image. PCT/EP2016/070321 (patent pending)Google Scholar
- 19.Sanabria SJ, Goksel O (2016) Hand-held sound-speed mammography based on ultrasound reflector tracking. In: Ourselin S et al (eds) MICCAI2016, Part I, LNCS, vol 9900, pp 568–576Google Scholar
- 21.Meyers CRaTEB (1962) Measurement in physical education. Ronald Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 23.Evans JD (1996) Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
- 30.Conant EF, Keller BM, Pantalone L, Gastounioti A, McDonald ES, Kontos D (2017) Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures. Radiology 283:673–680CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kim WH, Lee SH, Chang JM, Cho N, Moon WK (2017) Background echotexture classification in breast ultrasound: inter-observer agreement study. Acta Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117695665
- 43.Duric N, Littrup P, Chandiwala-Mody P et al (2010) In-vivo imaging results with ultrasound tomography: Report on an ongoing study at the Karmanos cancer institute. Proc of SPIE Vol 7629. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.845646