Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: A reader performance study

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 404-412

  Skaane, Per ^a   Gullien, Randi ^a   Eben, Ellen B ^a   Sandhaug, Merete ^b   Schulz Wendtland, Ruediger ^c   Stoeblen, Frank ^d  

^a ULLEVÅL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b Østfold Sentralsykehus ^*  (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^d KLINIKEN ESSEN MITTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Automated breast ultrasonography; breast cancer screening; hand held ultrasound; inter observer variability; mammography

Indexed keywords

DISEASES; MAMMOGRAPHY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

AREA UNDER THE CURVES; BREAST CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGE INTERPRETATION; INTEROBSERVER VARIABILITY; OBSERVER VARIATIONS; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS;

AUTOMATION;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATED BREAST ULTRASOUND; AUTOMATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR VOLUME; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84929508102     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0284185114528835     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen THH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: Impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011; 260: 658-663.
2. Hofvind S, Ursin G, Tretli S, et al. Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Cancer 2013; 119: 3106-3112.
3. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8469-8476.
4. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151-2163.
5. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: Detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000; 21: 325-336.
6. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44: 539-544.
7. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 177-182.
8. Kaplan SS,. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 641-649.
9. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH,. 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.
10. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009; 9: 335-335.
11. Fischer U, Korthauer A, Baum F, et al. Short first-pass MRI of the breast. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 267-269.
12. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, et al. Breast cancers initially detected by hand-held ultrasound: detection performance of radiologists using automated breast ultrasound data. Acta Radiol 2011; 52: 8-14.
13. Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A,. Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging: Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses. Acta Radiol 1997; 38: 497-502.
14. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, et al. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012; 265: 59-69.
15. Schaefer FKW, Waldmann A, Katalinic A, et al. Influence of additional breast ultrasound on cancer detection in a cohort study for quality assurance in breast diagnosis-analysis of 102,577 diagnostic procedures. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1085-1092.
16. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, et al. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 734-742.
17. Oberaigner W, Buchberger W, Frede T, et al. Introduction of organised mammography screening in Tyrol: results of a one-year pilot phase. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 91-91.
18. Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H,. Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J 2013; 19: 64-70.
19. Skaane P, Engedal K,. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 109-114.
20. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196: 123-134.
21. Ciatto S, Bernardi D, Calabrese M, et al. A first evaluation of breast density assessment by Quantra software as compared to visual classification. The Breast 2012; 21: 503-506.
22. Zhang J, Lai X-J, Zhu Q-L, et al. Interobserver agreement for sonograms of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 2179-2183.
23. Wang H-Y, Jiang Y-X, Zhu Q-L, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: A comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3190-3200.
24. Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG, et al. Radiologists' performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound. Korean J Radiol 2013; 14: 154-163.
25. Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: Lesion detection and BI-RADS classification-a pilot study. Fortschr Roentgenstr 2008; 180: 804-808.
26. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U, et al. The automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases. Int J Womens Health 2011; 3: 337-346.
27. Stoblen F, Landt S, Stelkens-Gebhardt R, et al. First evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of an automated 3D ultrasound system in a breast screening setting. Anticancer Research 2011; 31: 2569-2574.
28. Drukker K, Horsch KJ, Pesce LL, et al. Interreader scoring variability in an observer study using dual-modality imaging for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: 847-853.
29. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 583-589.
30. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267: 47-56.