scholarly journals Clinical Applications of Automated Breast Ultrasound: Screening for Breast Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Sun Mi Kim ◽  
Bo La Yun ◽  
Mijung Jang
2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 515-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roxanna Hellgren ◽  
Paul Dickman ◽  
Karin Leifland ◽  
Ariel Saracco ◽  
Per Hall ◽  
...  

Background Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) is an ultrasound (US) device with a wide scanner that sweeps over a large area of the breast and the acquired transverse images are sent to a workstation for reconstruction and review. Whether ABVS is as reliable as handheld US is, however, still not established. Purpose To compare the sensitivity and specificity of ABVS to handheld breast US for detection of breast cancer, in the situation of recall after mammography screening. Material and Methods A total of 113 women, five with bilateral suspicious findings, undergoing handheld breast US due to a suspicious mammographic finding in screening, underwent additional ABVS. The methods were assessed for each breast and each detected lesion separately and classified into two categories: breasts with mammographic suspicion of malignancy and breasts with a negative mammogram. Results Twenty-six cancers were found in 25 women. In the category of breasts with a suspicious mammographic finding (n = 118), the sensitivity of both handheld US and ABVS was 88% (22/25). The specificity of handheld US was 93.5% (87/93) and ABVS was 89.2% (83/93). In the category of breasts with a negative mammography (n = 103), the sensitivity of handheld US and ABVS was 100% (1/1). The specificity of handheld US was 100% (102/102) and ABVS was 94.1% (96/102). Conclusion ABVS can potentially replace handheld US in the investigation of women recalled from mammography screening due to a suspicious finding. Due to the small size of our study population, further investigation with larger study populations is necessary before the implementation of such practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Anca Ileana Ciurea ◽  
Ioana Boca ◽  
Liliana Rogojan ◽  
Larisa Dorina Ciule ◽  
Cristiana Augusta Ciortea

Metastases to the skeletal muscle from breast cancer represent an unusual and rare condition. We present the case of a 27-year-old female with left breast cancer (IDC NST G3) who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by conservativesurgery (sectorectomy and lymphadenectomy) and radiation therapy. Two months after the end of radiotherapy she presented with a 2 mm skin lesion and she was referred for a screening ultrasound. The screening automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) revealed local recurrence and pectoralis metastases, lesions evaluated also by magnetic resonance imaging. The diagnosis was confirmed by the ultrasound-guided biopsy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise M Chough ◽  
Wendie A Berg ◽  
Andriy I Bandos ◽  
Grace Y Rathfon ◽  
Christiane M Hakim ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To assess prospectively the interpretative performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as a supplemental screening after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or as a standalone screening of women with dense breast tissue. Methods Under an IRB-approved protocol (written consent required), women with dense breasts prospectively underwent concurrent baseline DBT and ABUS screening. Examinations were independently evaluated, in opposite order, by two of seven Mammography Quality Standards Act–qualified radiologists, with the primary radiologist arbitrating disagreements and making clinical management recommendations. We report results for 1111 screening examinations (598 first year and 513 second year) for which all diagnostic workups are complete. Imaging was also retrospectively reviewed for all cancers. Statistical assessments used a 0.05 significance level and accounted for correlation between participants’ examinations. Results Of 1111 women screened, primary radiologists initially “recalled” based on DBT alone (6.6%, 73/1111, CI: 5.2%–8.2%), of which 20 were biopsied, yielding 6/8 total cancers. Automated breast ultrasound increased recalls overall to 14.4% (160/1111, CI: 12.4%–16.6%), with 27 total biopsies, yielding 1 additional cancer. Double reading of DBT alone increased the recall rate to 10.7% (119/1111), with 21 biopsies, with no improvement in cancer detection. Double reading ABUS increased the recall rate to 15.2% (169/1111, CI: 13.2%–17.5%) of women, of whom 22 were biopsied, yielding the detection of 7 cancers, including one seen only on double reading ABUS. Inter-radiologist agreement was similar for recall recommendations from DBT (κ = 0.24, CI: 0.14–0.34) and ABUS (κ = 0.23, CI: 0.15–0.32). Integrated assessments from both readers resulted in a recall rate of 15.1% (168/1111, CI: 13.1%–17.4%). Conclusion Supplemental or standalone ABUS screening detected cancers not seen on DBT, but substantially increased noncancer recall rates.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung Hun Kim ◽  
Hak Hee Kim ◽  
Woo Kyung Moon

Author(s):  
Amera Abd Elsalam Mostafa ◽  
Mohamed Adel Eltomey ◽  
Ashraf Mohammed Elaggan ◽  
Amel A. Hashish

Abstract Background Breast cancer is a major health problem, being the most common cancer in women. Early detection of breast cancer aims to the reduction of mortality and morbidity rates. Conventional screening methods include mammography and ultrasonography; however, both modalities have their limitations. Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is a recent technological advancement in the field of breast imaging having the benefit of standardization of the scans and lack of operator dependence as in conventional handheld ultrasound scans. The aim of this work was to report our initial experience of the added value of ABUS as a breast screening tool. The study included 200 patients who had screening mammograms, ultrasound, and ABUS. Results A significant difference was found between the number of lesions detected by ABUS and conventional ultrasound. A significant difference was found between lesions detected by ABUS and mammography which was most evident in patients with dense breasts. Conclusions ABUS is a valuable tool in the screening of the breast with improved lesion detection, especially in patients with dense breasts.


2016 ◽  
Vol 206 (6) ◽  
pp. 1341-1350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryellen L. Giger ◽  
Marc F. Inciardi ◽  
Alexandra Edwards ◽  
John Papaioannou ◽  
Karen Drukker ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 703
Author(s):  
Ioana Boca (Bene) ◽  
Anca Ileana Ciurea ◽  
Cristiana Augusta Ciortea ◽  
Sorin Marian Dudea

Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is an ultrasound technique that tends to be increasingly used as a supplementary technique in the evaluation of patients with dense glandular breasts. Patients with dense breasts have an increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to patients with fatty breasts. Furthermore, for this group of patients, mammography has a low sensitivity in detecting breast cancers, especially if it is not associated with architectural distortion or calcifications. ABUS is a standardized examination with many advantages in both screening and diagnostic settings: it increases the detection rate of breast cancer, improves the workflow, and reduces the examination time. On the other hand, like any imaging technique, ABUS has disadvantages and even some limitations. Many disadvantages can be diminished by additional attention and training. Disadvantages regarding image acquisition are the inability to assess the axilla, the vascularization, and the elasticity of a lesion, while concerning the interpretation, the disadvantages are the artifacts due to poor positioning, lack of contact, motion or lesion related. This article reviews and discusses the indications, the advantages, and disadvantages of the method and also the sources of error in the ABUS examination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document