• AI
  • Molecular Imaging
  • CT
  • X-Ray
  • Ultrasound
  • MRI
  • Facility Management
  • Mammography

Automated Volume Breast Ultrasound vs Hand-Held for Breast Imaging


How does accuracy compare in automated breast volume ultrasound and hand-held ultrasound?

Automated volume breast ultrasound (AVBS) is equal in diagnostic accuracy to hand-held (HH) ultrasound, whether performed by a sonographer or mammography technologist, according to a study presented at RSNA 2016.

Researchers from the United States and Italy sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer variability of HH US and a single volume using AVBS centered over the clinical abnormality and to compare if there is a significant difference if the AVBS is performed by a sonographer (UT) or mammography technologist (MT).

A total of 90 patients, median age 53.1, participated in the trial, undergoing diagnostic ultrasounds; 60 for a palpable mass, 25 for mammogram abnormality, one for follow-up study, and four for breast discharge. The patients were randomized to have either a HH or AVBS first. HH was performed using a 14MHz transducer. The AVBS was performed using a L15-9 transducer. The technologist performing the second study was blinded to results of the first exam. The AVBS was randomized between a UT and a MT. The studies were blinded, randomized, and read by two radiologists each with greater than 10 years’ experience in breast ultrasound. The lesion with the highest BI-RADS score was used in the analysis. The HH studies were read six months before the AVBS studies. Final diagnoses where made by core biopsy for follow-up for two years. Lesions included nine malignant lesions and 81 benign lesions.

The results showed that the K for benign/malignant was 0.831 (while the global agreement using a 7-point BI-RADS score was 0.488). The K agreement between AVBS and HH in detecting breast pathology was 0.831.

The first rater had a K of 0.910 (0.787-1.000) while the second 0.760 (0.578-0.943). The agreement between AVBS and HH was nearly the same when AVBS was performed by a MT (K=0.858 (0.723-0.963) or UT (k=0.803(0.596-1.000), p=0.47. The AUC for lesion characterization was AVBS reader 1 0.91 (0.84-0.96), AVBS reader 2 0.91 (0.83-0.96), HH reader 1 0.91 (0.84-0.96), and HH reader 2 0.83 (0.74-0.90) with no statistical difference. The inter-observer agreement based on BI-RADS was 0.568 (0.468-0.647), with the HH K of 0.631(0.584-0.665) and for AVBS 0.492 (0.457-0.564). The agreement based on pathology was K=0.831 (0.718-0.944) with HH K=0.795 (0.623-0.967) and AVBS 0.869 (0.725-1.000).

The researchers concluded that one view diagnostic AVBS was equivalent to a HH in diagnostic US work-up, and there was no difference if the AVBS is performed by a trained UT or MT.

Related Videos
Where the USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Fall Short: An Interview with Stacy Smith-Foley, MD
A Closer Look at MRI-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
Making the Case for Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Vascular Interventions
Can Diffusion Microstructural Imaging Provide Insights into Long Covid Beyond Conventional MRI?
Assessing the Impact of Radiology Workforce Shortages in Rural Communities
Emerging MRI and PET Research Reveals Link Between Visceral Abdominal Fat and Early Signs of Alzheimer’s Disease
Reimbursement Challenges in Radiology: An Interview with Richard Heller, MD
Nina Kottler, MD, MS
Radiology Challenges with Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Breast Implants
Related Content
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.