CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2021; 43(03): 190-199
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722156
Original Article
Mastology

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
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
,
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
,
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
,
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
,
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
,
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
,
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
2  Clinical Epidemiology Program, Instituto Nacional de Cancer (INCA), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
,
1  Radiology Department, Diagnósticos da América (DASA), Barra da Tijuca, RJ, Brazil
3  Radiology Department, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Funding This research was supported by Diagnósticos das Américas (DASA). We thank our directors, specially Romeu Domingues and Roberto Domingues, and our colleagues from DASA who provided the structure, insight, and expertise that greatly assisted the research. We also thank General Electric (GE) for lending us the device, providing all support for the project, and for the opportunity to evaluate the ABUS. We thank all the technicians (Roselane de Oliveira Sacramento, Marcia Cristina Dias Mendes, Kelly Rose Fontes Aragão, Gabriela da Silva Moraes, Rosália Aparecida Dutra Ribeiro and Thatyana Costa Fernandes) for assistance with the performance of the ABUS.

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 A total of 440 patients were 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

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.

Contributors

All authors participated in the concept and design of the present study; analysis and interpretation of data; draft or revision of the manuscript, and they have approved the manuscript as submitted. All authors are responsible for the reported research.




Publication History

Received: 25 May 2020

Accepted: 06 October 2020

Publication Date:
15 April 2021 (online)

© 2021. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil