Comparative study of handheld ultrasound ,automated breast volume scanner and breast specific gamma imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer / 中华超声影像学杂志

Objective To compare the efficiencies of handheld ultrasound ,automated breast volume scanner ( ABVS) and breast specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in the diagnosis of breast cancer . Methods A retrospective review was performed in 200 women ( 210 breast lesions) underwent handheld ultrasound , ABVS and BSGI before surgery . The results were verified with histological examination . Results There was no obvious difference among the three methods in the sensitivity for the diagnosis of breast cancer( P >0 .05) . There was no difference of specificity between handheld ultrasound and ABVS ,BSGI( P = 0 .393 , 0 .139) . Compared with BSGI ,ABVS was an imaging modality with highest specificity for the diagnosis of breast cancer( P = 0 .021) ,and there was no difference between handheld ultrasound and ABVS ,BSGI ( P =0 .07 ,0 .29) . The areas under the ROC curve of handheld ultrasound ,ABVS and BSGI were 0 .855 ,0 .894 and 0 .818 ,respectively . The difference was obvious between ABVS and BSGI ( P = 0 .02) . Conclusions The diagnostic efficacy of ABVS in diagnosis of breast malignant lesions is similar to that of handheld ultrasound . BSGI has certain clinical value in the diagnosis of breast cancer ,and it is an effective supplement for breast cancer ultrasound examination .

Validity of breast-specific gamma imaging for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 162 patients who underwent BSGI in BI-RADS 4 lesions on mammography and/or ultrasound. RESULTS: Of the 162 breast lesions, 66 were malignant tumors and 96 were benign tumors. Sensitivity and specificity of BSGI were 90.9% and 78.1%, and positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 74.1% and 92.6%. The sensitivity or specificity of mammography and ultrasound were 74.2% and 56.3% and 87.9% and 19.8%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of BSGI for breast lesions ≤1 cm were 88.0% and 86.8%, while the values of beast lesions >1 cm were 92.7% and 61.5%. The sensitivity or specificity of BSGI and mammography for patients with dense breasts were 92.0% and 81.3% and 72.0% and 50.0%, respectively. 26 patients showed neither a nodule nor microcalcification on ultrasound, but showed suspicious calcification on mammography. The sensitivity and specificity of BSGI with microcalcification only lesion were 75.0% and 94.4%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that BSGI had shown high sensitivity and specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values in BI-RADS 4 lesions on ultrasound and/or mammography. BSGI showed excellent results in dense breasts, in lesions that are less than 1 cm in size and lesions with suspicious microcalcification only.