Automated breast ultrasound compared to hand-held ultrasound in surveillance after breast-conserving surgery

Abstract

Purpose:

To investigate the agreement between automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in surveillance of women with a history of breast cancer in terms of recurrences or new ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancer.

Methods:

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and informed consent was waived. From April to June 2016, women with dense breasts undergoing annual surveillance with mammography and HHUS after breast-conserving surgery were offered supplemental ABUS (Invenia). HHUS was performed by a breast radiologist and ABUS by a trained technician. Images were reviewed by 2 breast radiologists. A per-patient BI-RADS category was independently assigned in all cases and categories were dichotomized into negative (1, 2, 3) and positive (4, 5). Cohen κ, McNemar, and Wilcoxon statistics were used. Final pathology was used as reference standard for malignant lesions.

Results:

A total of 154 women (mean age 62±11 years) were enrolled. Time from surgery was a mean of 8±6 years. Cancer prevalence was 4/154 (2.6%). Interreader agreement for ABUS was 1. Intermethod interreader agreement for HHUS and ABUS was substantial for BI-RADS categories (κ = 0.785) and for dichotomic assessment (κ = 0.794). There was no difference in dichotomic assignment between 2 readers (p = 0.5) but a significant difference in assigning BI-RADS categories (p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

A substantial agreement resulted between HHUS and ABUS in surveillance of women with a previous history of breast cancer. In particular, ABUS recognized all cancers detected by HHUS and could play a role in first-level surveillance of women at intermediate risk.

Keywords

Breast oncology epidemiology and prevention diagnostic imaging

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AIOM. I Numeri del Cancro in Italia 2018. Milano: AIOM; 2018.

Bucchi

Belli

Benelli

, et al. Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM. Radiol Medica 2016; 121: 891–896.

Freer

. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 2015; 35: 302–315.

Tagliafico

Mariscotti

Valdora

, et al. A prospective comparative trial of adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts (ASTOUND-2). Eur J Cancer 2018; 104: 39–46.

Berg

Blume

Cormack

, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151–2163.

Brem

Tabár

Duffy

, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: The Somoinsight Study. Radiology 2015; 274: 663–673.

Kelly

Dean

Comulada

, et al. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 734–742.

Wilczek

Rasouliyan

, et al. Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 1554–1563.

American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS. Philadelphia: American College of Radiology; 2012.

10.

Seigel

Podgo

Remaley

. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135: 571–578.

11.

Zanotel

Bednarova

Londero

, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications. Radiol Medica 2018; 123: 1–12.

12.

Girometti

Zanotel

Londero

, et al. Comparison between automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) versus hand-held ultrasound as a second look procedure after magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 3767–3775.

13.

Chae

Shin

Kim

, et al. Diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound as a replacement for a hand-held second-look ultrasound for breast lesions detected initially on magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39: 2246–2254.

14.

Kim

Kang

Kim

, et al. Prospective study comparing two second-look ultrasound techniques: handheld ultrasound and an automated breast volume scanner. J Ultrasound Med 2016; 35: 2103–2112.

15.

Wei

Xie

, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of automated breast volume scanner compared with handheld ultrasound in pre-operative breast invasive ductal carcinomas: a pilot study of 51 cases. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 2089–2096.

16.

Kim

Kang

. The image quality and lesion characterization of breast using automated whole-breast ultrasound: a comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84: 1232–1235.

17.

Chang

Cha

Park

, et al. Automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS): reproducibility of mass localization, sizemeasurement, and characterization on serial examinations. Acta Radiol 2015; 56: 1163–1170.

18.

Jiang

Zhu

, et al. Accuracy of an automated breast volume ultrasound system for assessment of the pre-operative extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: comparison with a conventional handheld ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39: 2255–2263.

19.

Wang

Huo

, et al. Early prediction of pathological outcomes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients using automated breast ultrasound. Chin J Cancer Res 2016; 28: 478–485.

20.

D’Angelo

Rinaldi

Belli

, et al. Usefulness of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) for monitoring tumor response to neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer patients: preliminary results. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019; 23: 225–231.

21.

Tozaki

Fukuma

. Accuracy of determining preoperative cancer extent measured by automated breast ultrasonography. Jpn J Radiol 2010; 28: 771–773.

22.

Huang

Zhu

Tan

, et al. Evaluation of automated breast volume scanner for breast conservation surgery in ductal carcinoma in situ. Oncol Lett 2016; 12: 2481–2484.

23.

Rella

Belli

Giuliani

, et al. Automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in the screening and diagnostic setting: indications and practical use. Acad Radiol 2018; 25: 1457–1470.

24.

Kolb

Lichy

Newhouse

. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165–175.

25.

AIRTUM Working Group. Italian cancer figures, report 2014: prevalence and cure of cancer in Italy. Epidemiol Prev 2014; 38 (6 Suppl 1): 1–122.

26.

Berg

Blume

Cormack

, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151–2163.

27.

Swinnen

Keupers

Soens

, et al. Breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for primary non-metastasised breast cancer in non-high-risk women: a systematic review. Insights Imaging 2018; 9: 961–970.

28.

Golatta

Baggs

Schweitzer-Martin

, et al. Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 889–895.

29.

Wenkel

Heckmann

Heinrich

, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS^TM classification: a pilot study. RoFo 2008; 180: 804–808.

30.

Jeh

Kim

Choi

, et al. Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions. Acta Radiol 2016; 57: 162–169.