Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions.

BACKGROUND: Automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) is increasingly used as a screening tool. Several studies have demonstrated a similar diagnostic performance for ABUS compared with handheld ultrasonography (HHUS), but the overall results have been controversial. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical utility of ABUS and HHUS for detection and diagnosis of breast lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: ABUS and HHUS images of suspicious breast lesions were obtained for 173 consecutive women scheduled to undergo ultrasonography (US)-guided or stereotactic biopsy. There were a total of 206 lesions, 46 of which were malignant and 160 benign. Three breast radiologists took part in this study: two reviewed the ABUS images, and the third reviewed all of the images, ABUS and HHUS, as well as the patients' medical records. The biopsied-lesion-detection rates were obtained. Using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), the images of the biopsied lesions were evaluated. Factors affecting ABUS detectability were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall detection rates were 83.0% for ABUS and 94.2% for HHUS. Ten lesions were not detected on either HHUS or ABUS and these were microcalcifications (one malignancy and nine benign lesions). Of the 194 HHUS-detected lesions, 169 were detected by ABUS and 25 benign were not. ABUS less frequently detected lesions of smaller size as well as those of benign appearance and lower final-assessment category (P = 0.011 and P < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: ABUS detected all of the malignant lesions that were detected on HHUS. ABUS missed several smaller benign lesions.

Radiologists' performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection performance of the automated whole breast ultrasound (AWUS) with that of the hand-held breast ultrasound (HHUS) and to evaluate the interobserver variability in the interpretation of the AWUS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AWUS was performed in 38 breast cancer patients. A total of 66 lesions were included: 38 breast cancers, 12 additional malignancies and 16 benign lesions. Three breast radiologists independently reviewed the AWUS data and analyzed the breast lesions according to the BI-RADS classification. RESULTS: The detection rate of malignancies was 98.0% for HHUS and 90.0%, 88.0% and 96.0% for the three readers of the AWUS. The sensitivity and the specificity were 98.0% and 62.5% in HHUS, 90.0% and 87.5% for reader 1, 88.0% and 81.3% for reader 2, and 96.0% and 93.8% for reader 3, in AWUS. There was no significant difference in the radiologists' detection performance, sensitivity and specificity (p > 0.05) between the two modalities. The interobserver agreement was fair to good for the ultrasonographic features, categorization, size, and the location of breast masses. CONCLUSION: AWUS is thought to be useful for detecting breast lesions. In comparison with HHUS, AWUS shows no significant difference in the detection rate, sensitivity and the specificity, with high degrees of interobserver agreement.