Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of automated breast ultrasound and hand-held breast ultrasound in the screening of dense breasts / Comparação entre a ultrassonografia automatizada e a ultrassonografia convencional no rastreio de mamas densas
Philadelpho, Fernanda; Calas, Maria Julia Gregorio; Carneiro, Gracy de Almeida Coutinho; Silveira, Isabela Cunha; Vaz, Andréia Brandão Ribeiro; Nogueira, Adriana Maria Coelho; Bergmann, Anke; Lopes, Flávia Paiva Proença Lobo.
  • Philadelpho, Fernanda; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
  • Calas, Maria Julia Gregorio; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
  • Carneiro, Gracy de Almeida Coutinho; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
  • Silveira, Isabela Cunha; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
  • Vaz, Andréia Brandão Ribeiro; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
  • Nogueira, Adriana Maria Coelho; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
  • Bergmann, Anke; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
  • Lopes, Flávia Paiva Proença Lobo; Diagnósticos da América. Radiology Department. Barra da Tijuca. BR
Rev. bras. ginecol. obstet ; 43(3): 190-199, Mar. 2021. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1251302
ABSTRACT
Abstract Objective To compare hand-held breast ultrasound (HHBUS) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as screening tool for cancer. Methods A cross-sectional study in patients with mammographically dense breasts was conducted, and both HHBUS and ABUS were performed. Hand-held breast ultrasound was acquired by radiologists and ABUS by mammography technicians and analyzed by breast radiologists. We evaluated the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification of the exam and of the lesion, as well as the amount of time required to perform and read each exam. The statistical analysis employed was measures of central tendency and dispersion, frequencies, Student t test, and a univariate logistic regression, through the odds ratio and its respective 95% confidence interval, and with p<0.05 considered of statistical significance. Results Atotal of 440 patientswere evaluated. Regarding lesions,HHBUS detected 15 (7.7%) BI-RADS 2, 175 (89.3%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (3%) BI-RADS 4, with 3 being confirmed by biopsy as invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs), and 3 false-positives. Automated breast ultrasound identified 12 (12.9%) BI-RADS 2, 75 (80.7%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (6.4%) BI-RADS 4, including 3 lesions detected by HHBUS and confirmed as IDCs, in addition to 1 invasive lobular carcinoma and 2 high-risk lesions not detected by HHBUS. The amount of time required for the radiologist to read the ABUS was statistically inferior compared with the time required to read the HHBUS (p<0.001). The overall concordance was 80.9%. A total of 219 lesions were detected, from those 70 lesions by both methods, 126 only by HHBUS (84.9% not suspicious by ABUS) and 23 only by ABUS. Conclusion Compared with HHBUS, ABUS allowed adequate sonographic study in supplemental screening for breast cancer in heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breasts.
RESUMO
Resumo Objetivo Comparar a ultrassonografia convencional das mamas (US) com a ultrassonografia automatizada das mamas (ABUS) no rastreio do câncer. Métodos Realizamos um estudo transversal com pacientes com mamas mamograficamente densas, sendo avaliadas pela US e pela ABUS. A US foi realizada por radiologistas e a ABUS por técnicos de mamografia e analisada por radiologistas especializados em mama. A classificação Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) do exame e das lesões o tempo de leitura e de aquisição foram avaliados. A análise estatística foi realizada através de medidas de tendência central, dispersão e frequências, teste t de Student e regressão logística univariada, através do odds ratio, com intervalo de confiança de 95%, e com p<0,05 sendo considerado estatisticamente significante. Resultados Foram avaliadas 440 pacientes. Em relação às lesões, a US detectou 15 (7,7%) BI-RADS 2, 175 (89,3%) BI-RADS 3 e 6 (3%) BI-RADS 4, das quais 3 foram confirmadas, por biópsia, como carcinomas ductais invasivos e 3 falso-positivos. A ABUS identificou 12 (12,9%) BI-RADS 2, 75 (80,7%) BI-RADS 3 e 6 (6,4%) BI-RADS 4, incluindo 3 lesões detectadas pela US e confirmadas como carcinomas ductais invasivos, além de 1 carcinoma lobular invasivo e 2 lesões de alto risco não detectadas pela US. O tempo de leitura dos exames da ABUS foi estatisticamente inferior ao tempo do radiologista para realizar a US (p<0,001). A concordância foi de 80,9%. Um total de 219 lesões foram detectadas, das quais 70 por ambos os métodos, 126 observadas apenas pela US (84,9% não eram lesões suspeitas no ABUS) e 23 apenas pela ABUS. Conclusão Comparado à US, a ABUS permitiu adequado estudo complementar no rastreio do câncer de mamas heterogeneamente densas e extremamente densas.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Breast Neoplasms / Ultrasonography, Mammary Type of study: Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prevalence study / Risk factors / Screening study Limits: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans Language: English Journal: Rev. bras. ginecol. obstet Journal subject: Gynecology / Obstetrics Year: 2021 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Diagnósticos da América/BR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Breast Neoplasms / Ultrasonography, Mammary Type of study: Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prevalence study / Risk factors / Screening study Limits: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans Language: English Journal: Rev. bras. ginecol. obstet Journal subject: Gynecology / Obstetrics Year: 2021 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Diagnósticos da América/BR