Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Automated three-dimensional (3D) breast ultrasound (US) systems are meant to overcome the shortcomings of hand-held ultrasound (HHUS). The aim of this study is to analyze and compare clinical performance of an automated 3D-US system by comparing it with HHUS, mammography and the clinical gold standard (defined as the combination of HHUS, mammography and—if indicated—histology).

Methods

Nine hundred and eighty three patients (=1,966 breasts) were enrolled in this monocentric, explorative and prospective cohort study. All examinations were analyzed blinded to the patients´ history and to the results of the routine imaging. The agreement of automated 3D-US with HHUS, mammography and the gold standard was assessed with kappa statistics. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value were calculated to assess the test performance.

Results

Blinded to the results of the gold standard the agreement between automated 3D-US and HHUS or mammography was fair, given by a Kappa coefficient of 0.31 (95 % CI [0.26;0.36], p < 0.0001) and 0.25 (95 % CI [0.2;0.3], p < 0.0001), respectively. Our results showed a high negative predictive value (NPV) of 98 %, a high specificity of 85 % and a sensitivity of 74 % based on the cases with US-guided biopsy. Including the cases where the lesion was seen in a second-look automated 3D-US the sensitivity improved to 84 % (NPV = 99 %, specificity = 85 %).

Conclusion

The results of this study let us suggest, that automated 3D-US might be a helpful new tool in breast imaging, especially in screening.

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. Wild JJ, Neal D (1951) Use of high-frequency ultrasonic waves for detecting changes of texture in living tissues. Lancet 1(6656):655–657

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kreienberg R (2012) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie der AWMF, Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e.V. und Deutschen Krebshilfe e.V. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/032-045OL.html

  3. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, Brenner RJ, Bassett L, Berg W, Feig S, Hendrick E, Mendelson E, D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Burhenne LW (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Newell MS, Birdwell RL, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Mahoney MC, Bailey L, Berg WA, Harvey JA, Herman CR, Kaplan SS, Liberman L, Mendelson EB, Parikh JR, Rabinovitch R, Rosen EL, Sutherland ML (2010) ACR appropriateness criteria(R) on nonpalpable mammographic findings (excluding calcifications). J Am Coll Radiol 7(12):920–930. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.07.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition–summary document. Ann Oncol 19(4):614–622. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm481

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Albert US, Altland H, Duda V, Engel J, Geraedts M, Heywang-Kobrunner S, Holzel D, Kalbheim E, Koller M, Konig K, Kreienberg R, Kuhn T, Lebeau A, Nass-Griegoleit I, Schlake W, Schmutzler R, Schreer I, Schulte H, Schulz-Wendtland R, Wagner U, Kopp I (2009) 2008 Update of the guideline: early detection of breast cancer in Germany. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 135(3):339–354. doi:10.1007/s00432-008-0450-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM, Koo HR, Kim WH, Cho N, Yi A, Yun BL, Lee SH, Kim MY, Ryu EB, Seo M (2014) Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology 270(2):369–377. doi:10.1148/radiol.13130724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE (1999) Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 213(2):413–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, Bani C, Ciatto S (2006) Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 111(3):440–448. doi:10.1007/s11547-006-0040-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181(1):177–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berliere M, Berg BV, D’Hoore W, Maldague B (2003) Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(6):1675–1679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dick DE, Elliott RD, Metz RL, Rojohn DS (1979) A new automated, high resolution ultrasound breast scanner. Ultrason Imaging 1(4):368–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Egan RL, Egan KL (1984) Detection of breast carcinoma: comparison of automated water-path whole-breast sonography, mammography, and physical examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 143(3):493–497

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Egan RL, Egan KL (1984) Automated water-path full-breast sonography: correlation with histology of 176 solid lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 143(3):499–507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hollenhorst M, Hansen C, Huttebrauker N, Schasse A, Heuser L, Ermert H, Schulte-Altedorneburg G (2010) Ultrasound computed tomography in breast imaging: first clinical results of a custom-made scanner. Ultraschall Med 31(6):604–609. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1245506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jackson VP, Kelly-Fry E, Rothschild PA, Holden RW, Clark SA (1986) Automated breast sonography using a 7.5-MHz PVDF transducer: preliminary clinical evaluation. Work in progress. Radiology 159(3):679–684

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH (1988) High frequency breast ultrasound. Hand-held versus automated units; examination for palpable mass versus screening. J Ultrasound Med 7(2):77–81

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maturo VG, Zusmer NR, Gilson AJ, Smoak WM, Janowitz WR, Bear BE, Goddard J, Dick DE (1980) Ultrasound of the whole breast utilizing a dedicated automated breast scanner. Radiology 137(2):457–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Richter K, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Winzer KJ, Schmitt KJ, Prihoda H, Frohberg HD, Guski H, Gregor P, Blohmer JU, Fobbe F, Doinghaus K, Lohr G, Hamm B (1997) Detection of malignant and benign breast lesions with an automated US system: results in 120 cases. Radiology 205(3):823–830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shipley JA, Duck FA, Goddard DA, Hillman MR, Halliwell M, Jones MG, Thomas BT (2005) Automated quantitative volumetric breast ultrasound data-acquisition system. Ultrasound Med Biol 31(7):905–917. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.03.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sinha SP, Goodsitt MM, Roubidoux MA, Booi RC, LeCarpentier GL, Lashbrook CR, Thomenius KE, Chalek CL, Carson PL (2007) Automated ultrasound scanning on a dual-modality breast imaging system: coverage and motion issues and solutions. J Ultrasound Med 26(5):645–655

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vilaro MM, Kurtz AB, Needleman L, Fleischer AC, Mitchell DG, Rosenberg A, Miller C, Rifkin MD, Pennell R, Baltarowich O et al (1989) Hand-held and automated sonomammography. Clinical role relative to X-ray mammography. J Ultrasound Med 8(2):95–100

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Giuliano V, Giuliano C (2012) Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.09.018

    Google Scholar 

  24. Golatta M, Franz D, Harcos A, Junkermann H, Rauch G, Scharf A, Schuetz F, Sohn C, Heil J (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(8):e332–e336. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.03.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kelly KM, Richwald GA (2011) Automated whole-breast ultrasound: advancing the performance of breast cancer screening. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32(4):273–280. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2011.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(5):873–878. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Padilla F, Roubidoux MA, Paramagul C, Sinha SP, Goodsitt MM, Le Carpentier GL, Chan HP, Hadjiiski LM, Fowlkes JB, Joe AD, Klein KA, Nees AV, Noroozian M, Patterson SK, Pinsky RW, Hooi FM, Carson PL (2013) Breast mass characterization using 3-dimensional automated ultrasound as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 32(1):93–104

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Prosch H, Halbwachs C, Strobl C, Reisner LM, Hondl M, Weber M, Mostbeck GH (2011) Automated breast ultrasound vs. handheld ultrasound: BI-RADS classification, duration of the examination and patient comfort. Ultraschall Med 32(5):504–510. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1273414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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(3):747–754. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang ZL, Xw JH, Li JL, Huang Y, Tang J (2012) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med 117(8):1287–1293. doi:10.1007/s11547-012-0836-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M, Schwab SA, Uder M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bautz WA, Janka R (2008) Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification -a pilot study. Roefo 180(9):804–808. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1027563

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U, Wiskirchen J, Gyapong S, Soliman AA, Degenhardt F, Hillemanns P (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. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S23918

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang Q, Hu B, Li WB (2012) Detection of breast lesions using an automated breast volume scanner system. J Int Med Res 40(1):300–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS—breast imaging atlas. In: BI-RADS: Ultrasound Reston, American College of Radiology, VA

  35. 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(1):99–103. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Landis J, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S, Fischer T, Friese K, Reiser M (2009) Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 71(1):109–115. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Ethical standards

The vote of an independent ethics committee has been received.

Conflict of interest

There is no actual or potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Breast Unit, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Michael Golatta, Christina Baggs, Mirjam Schweitzer-Martin, Christoph Domschke, Sarah Schott, Aba Harcos, Alexander Scharf, Hans Junkermann, Joachim Rom, Christof Sohn & Joerg Heil

  2. Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Geraldine Rauch

Authors
  1. Michael Golatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Baggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirjam Schweitzer-Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph Domschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah Schott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aba Harcos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexander Scharf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hans Junkermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Geraldine Rauch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Joachim Rom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Christof Sohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Joerg Heil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Golatta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Golatta, M., Baggs, C., Schweitzer-Martin, M. et al. Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291, 889–895 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3509-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3509-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation