Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for breast cancer by comparing it to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG).
Methods
A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted between February 2016 and March 2017 in five tertiary hospitals in China, and 1922 women aged 30–69 years old were recruited. Women aged 30–39 years (group A) underwent ABUS and HHUS, and women aged 40–69 (group B) underwent additional MG. Images were interpreted using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). All BI-RADS 4 and 5 cases were confirmed pathologically. Sensitivities and specificities of all modalities were compared.
Results
There were 83 cancers in 677 women in group A and 321 cancers in 1245 women in group B. In the whole study population, the sensitivities of ABUS and HHUS were 92.8% (375/404) and 96.3% (389/404), and the specificities were 93.0% (1411/1518) and 89.6% (1360/1518), respectively. ABUS had a significantly higher specificity to HHUS (p < 0.01), while HHUS had higher sensitivity (p = 0.01). In group B, the sensitivities of ABUS, HHUS, and MG were 93.5% (300/321), 96.6% (310/321), and 87.9% (282/321). The specificities were 93.0% (859/924), 89.9% (831/924), and 91.6% (846/924). ABUS had significantly higher sensitivity (p = 0.02) and comparable specificity compared with MG (p = 0.14).
Conclusion
ABUS increased sensitivity and had similar specificity compared with mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Additionally, ABUS has comparable performance to HHUS in women aged 30–69 years old. ABUS or HHUS is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis.
Key Points
• In breast cancer diagnosis settings, automated breast ultrasound has a higher cancer detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity than mammography, especially in women with dense breasts.
• Compared with handheld ultrasound, automated breast ultrasound has higher specificity, lower sensitivity, and comparable diagnostic performance.
• Automated breast ultrasound is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis, and may have a potential indication for its further use in the breast cancer early detection.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ABUS:
-
Automated breast ultrasound
- ACR BI-RADS:
-
American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System
- AUC:
-
Area under the curve
- CDR:
-
Cancer detection rate
- CIs:
-
Confidence intervals
- DCIS:
-
Ductal carcinoma in situ
- FPR:
-
False positive rate
- HHUS:
-
Handheld ultrasound
- MG:
-
Mammography
References
Li T, Mello-Thoms C, Brennan PC (2016) Descriptive epidemiology of breast cancer in China: incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 159:395–406
Song F, He M, Li H et al (2008) A cancer incidence survey in Tianjin: the third largest city in China-between 1981 and 2000. Cancer Causes Control 19:443–450
Zeng H, Zheng R, Zhang S, Zou X, Chen W (2014) Female breast cancer statistics of 2010 in China: estimates based on data from 145 population-based cancer registries. J Thorac Dis 6:466–470
Zeng H, Zheng R, Guo Y et al (2015) Cancer survival in China, 2003-2005: a population-based study. Int J Cancer 136:1921–1930
Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M et al SEER Cancer statistics review, 1975-2015, National Cancer Institute. Available via http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2015/. Accessed 4 Sept 2019
Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663
Fan LM, Strasser-Weippl KM, Li JM et al (2014) Breast cancer in China. Lancet Oncol 15:e279–e289
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087
Dai H, Yan Y, Wang P et al (2014) Distribution of mammographic density and its influential factors among Chinese women. Int J Epidemiol 43:1240–1251
Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G et al (2016) Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol 34:1882–1888
Kim WH, Chang JM, Lee J et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis and breast ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a prospective comparison study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162:85–94
van Zelst JCM, Mann RM (2018) Automated three-dimensional breast US for screening: technique, artifacts, and lesion characterization. Radiographics 38:663–683
Zanotel M, Bednarova I, Londero V et al (2018) Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications. Radiol Med 123:1–12
Chen L, Chen Y, Diao XH et al (2013) Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:1735–1742
Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Park JS, Kim SJ (2011) Radiologists’ performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). Eur J Radiol 78:99–103
Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Park JS, Kim SJ (2011) Breast cancers initially detected by hand-held ultrasound: detection performance of radiologists using automated breast ultrasound data. Acta Radiol 52:8–14
Jeh SK, Kim SH, Choi JJ et al (2016) Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions. Acta Radiol 57:162–169
Golatta M, Franz D, Harcos A et al (2013) Interobserver reliability of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) interpretation and agreement of ABVS findings with hand held breast ultrasound (HHUS), mammography and pathology results. Eur J Radiol 82:e332–e336
Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH et al (2006) Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US. Radiology 240:26–32
Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG et al (2013) Radiologists’ performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound. Korean J Radiol 14:154–163
Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A (2011) Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 81:873–878
Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S, Fischer T, Friese K, Reiser M (2008) Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 71:109–115
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
Wang H, Jiang Y, Zhu Q et al (2012) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol 81:3190–3200
Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U et al (2011) The automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases. Int J Womens Health 3:337–346
Schmachtenberg C, Fischer T, Hamm B, Bick U (2017) Diagnostic performance of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasonography with breast MRI as the gold standard. Acad Radiol 24:954–961
Vourtsis A, Kachulis A (2018) The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women. Eur Radiol 28:592–601
Zhang X, Lin X, Tan Y et al (2018) A multicenter hospital-based diagnosis study of automated breast ultrasound system in detecting breast cancer among Chinese women. Chin J Cancer Res 30:231–239
Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS (2000) Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics 56:345–351
Kotsianos-Hermle D, Wirth S, Fischer T, Hiltawsky KM, Reiser M (2008) First clinical use of a standardized three-dimensional ultrasound for breast imaging. Eur J Radiol 71:102–108
Prosch H, Halbwachs C, Strobl C et al (2011) Automated breast ultrasound vs. handheld ultrasound: BI-RADS classification, duration of the examination and patient comfort. Ultraschall Med 32:504–510
Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, Sandhaug M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Stoeblen F (2015) Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiol 56:404–412
Arleo EK, Saleh M, Ionescu D, Drotman M, Min RJ, Hentel K (2014) Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first quarter experience. Clin Imaging 38:439–444
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
Kuzmiak CM, Ko EY, Tuttle LA, Steed D, Zeng D, Yoon SC (2015) Whole breast ultrasound: comparison of the visibility of suspicious lesions with automated breast volumetric scanning versus hand-held breast ultrasound. Acad Radiol 22:870–879
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163
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
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank everyone who participated in this study, including the many individuals not specifically mentioned in the paper who provided significant support.
Funding
This work was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS 2017-I2M-B&R-03), the GE Healthcare (11183574598), and the Peking Union Medical College Doctoral Innovation Fund (2017-1001-18).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Youlin Qiao from the National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College.
Conflict of interest
Author Mengmeng Jia is the 2018 GE Healthcare Call for proposal Awardee. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statistics and biometry
Four of the authors (Mengmeng Jia, Xi Zhang, Ruimei Feng, and Youlin Qiao) have significant statistical expertise.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from all five study centers, including Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the First People’s Hospital of Hangzhou, Xin Hua Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, and Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
The methodology of this study has been previously reported in the following paper:
Zhang X, Lin X, Tan Y, et al A multicenter hospital-based diagnosis study of automated breast ultrasound system in detecting breast cancer among Chinese women. Chin J Cancer Res. 2018;30(2):231–239. doi:10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.02.06
Another newly published paper, which evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of ABUS and HHUS as adjuncts to mammogram in women with dense breasts, has some overlap participant with the current study. Only the women with dense breasts were analyzed in the previous study, and these two papers have different objectives. (Jia, M., Lin, X., Zhou, X. et al Diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound and handheld ultrasound in women with dense breasts. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05625-2).
Methodology
• Prospective study
• Cross-sectional study
• Multicenter study
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOC 313 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, X., Jia, M., Zhou, X. et al. The diagnostic performance of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound and mammography in symptomatic outpatient women: a multicenter, cross-sectional study in China. Eur Radiol 31, 947–957 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07197-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07197-7