Characterization of Breast Lesions: Comparison between Three-dimensional Ultrasound and Automated Volume Breast Ultrasound

doi:10.37015/AUDT.2021.210007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) and automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) for the characterization of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Methods: Ninety patients who underwent surgery and preoperative conventional ultrasound (US), 3D-US, and ABVS examinations were enrolled in this study. The image quality and adjacent structures of the lesions in the coronal plane were compared. The combination of US, 3D-US, and ABVS for retraction phenomenon of the lesion was compared and the diagnostic performance of each combination was analyzed.
Results: ABVS displayed better image quality and adjacent structures than 3D-US (P < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.913, 0.842, and 0.871 for US, 3D-US, and ABVS, respectively. The AUC of the retraction phenomenon of the lesion was 0.732 and 0.810 for 3D-US and ABVS, respectively. When they were combined, US+ABVS showed the highest AUC of 0.924. No significant difference of diagnostic performances was found among conventional US, US+3D-US, and US+ABVS(P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Compared with 3D-US, ABVS seems to be superior in showing the retraction phenomenon of breast lesions and in the characterization of breast lesions alone or in combination with conventional US. Although no significant difference was observed between them, both ABVS and 3D-US provided valuable information in the coronal plane and improved our confidence level in breast lesion characterization, especially when combined with the conventional US.

Key words: Breast neoplasms; Ultrasonography; Imaging; Three-dimensional; Automated volume scanner

Wanru Jia, MD, Jingwen, Zhang, MD, Yijie Dong, MD, Ying Zhu, MD, Xiaohong Jia, MD, Weiwei Zhan, MD, Jianqiao Zhou, MD. Characterization of Breast Lesions: Comparison between Three-dimensional Ultrasound and Automated Volume Breast Ultrasound. Advanced Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Therapy, 2021, 5(3): 204-211.

References

[1]	Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM, Koo HR, Kim WH, Cho N, et al. Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology 2014; 270:369-377.
[2]	Yoo KB, Kwon JA, Cho E, Kang MH, Nam JM, Choi KS, et al. Is mammography for breast cancer screening cost-effective in both Western and asian countries?: results of a systematic review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14:4141-4149.
[3]	Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1081-1087.
[4]	Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004; 230:29-41.
[5]	Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012; 307:1394-1404.
[6]	Uchida K, Yamashita A, Kawase K, Kamiya K. Screening ultrasonography revealed 15% of mammographically occult breast cancers. Breast cancer 2008; 15:165-168.
[7]	Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012; 265:59-69.
[8]	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.
[9]	Jiang J, Chen YQ, Xu YZ, Chen ML, Zhu YK, Guan WB, et al. Correlation between three-dimensional ultrasound features and pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:1186-1196.
[10]	Watermann DO, Foldi M, Hanjalic-Beck A, Hasenburg A, Lughausen A, Prompeler H, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25:592-598.
[11]	Guo R, Lu G, Qin B, Fei B. Ultrasound imaging technologies for breast cancer detection and management: a review. Ultrasound in medicine & biology 2018; 44:37-70.
[12]	Meyberg-Solomayer GC, Kraemer B, Bergmann A, Kraemer E, Krainick U, Wallwiener D, et al. Does 3-D sonography bring any advantage to noninvasive breast diagnostics? Ultrasound Med Biol 2004; 30:583-589.
[13]	Clauser P, Londero V, Como G, Girometti R, Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C. Comparison between different imaging techniques in the evaluation of malignant breast lesions: can 3D ultrasound be useful? Radiol Med 2014; 119:240-248.
[14]	Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S, Fischer T, Friese K, Reiser M. Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71:109-115.
[15]	Wang L, Qi ZH. Automatic breast volume scanner versus handheld ultrasound in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45:1874-1881.
[16]	Vourtsis A, Kachulis A. The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women. Eur Radiol 2018; 28:592-601.
[17]	Yang S, Gao X, Liu L, Shu R, Yan J, Zhang G, et al. Performance and reading time of automated breast US with or without computer-aided detection. Radiology 2019; 292:540-549.
[18]	van Egdom LSE, Lagendijk M, Heijkoop EHM, Koning AHJ, van Deurzen CHM, Jager A, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonography of the breast; An adequate replacement for MRI in neoadjuvant chemotherapy tumour response evaluation? - RESPONDER trial. Eur J Radiol 2018; 104:94-100.
[19]	Tozaki M, Isobe S, Yamaguchi M, Ogawa Y, Kohara M, Joo C, et al. Optimal scanning technique to cover the whole breast using an automated breast volume scanner. Jpn J Radiol 2010; 28:325-328.
[20]	Cho KR, Seo BK, Lee JY, Pisano ED, Je BK, Lee JY, et al. A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54:365-370.
[21]	Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH, Kim SM, Han BK, Kim EK, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US. Radiology 2006; 240:26-32.
[22]	Bin L, Huihui Y, Weiping Y, Changyuan W, Qinghong Q, Weiyu M. Value of three-dimensional ultrasound in differentiating malignant from benign breast tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Q 2019; 35:68-73.
[23]	Kim H, Cha JH, Oh HY, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Chae EY. Comparison of conventional and automated breast volume ultrasound in the description and characterization of solid breast masses based on BI-RADS features. Breast cancer 2014; 21:423-428.
[24]	Girometti R, Zanotel M, Londero V, Linda A, Lorenzon M, Zuiani C. Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in assessing breast cancer size: a comparison with conventional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2018; 28:1000-1008.
[25]	Choi EJ, Choi H, Park EH, Song JS, Youk JH. Evaluation of an automated breast volume scanner according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS for breast ultrasound compared with hand-held ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2018; 99:138-145.
[26]	Girometti R, Zanotel M, Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C. 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.
[27]	Mercado CL. BI-RADS update. Radiol Clin North Am 2014; 52:481-487.
[28]	Li Z, Tian J, Wang X, Wang Y, Wang Z, Zhang L, Jing H, et al. Differences in multi-modal ultrasound imaging between triple negative and non-triple negative breast cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42:882-890.
[29]	An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ. 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.
[30]	Chen L, Chen Y, Diao XH, Fang L, Pang Y, Cheng AQ, et al. Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39:1735-1742.
[31]	Wang HY, Jiang YX, Zhu QL, Zhang J, Dai Q, Liu H, 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.
[32]	Wang ZL, Xu JH, Li JL, Huang Y, Tang J. Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med 2012; 117:1287-1293.
[33]	Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG, Choi JJ, Lee JH, Song BJ, et al. Radiologists' performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound. Korean J Radiol 2013; 14:154-163.
[34]	Schmachtenberg C, Fischer T, Hamm B, Bick U. Diagnostic performance of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasonography with breast mri as the gold standard. Acad Radiol 2017; 24:954-961.
[35]	Zanotel M, Bednarova I, Londero V, Linda A, Lorenzon M, Girometti R, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications. La Radiologia medica 2018; 123:1-12.
[36]	Rotten D, Levaillant JM, Zerat L. Analysis of normal breast tissue and of solid breast masses using three-dimensional ultrasound mammography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14:114-124.
[37]	Zheng FY, Yan LX, Huang BJ, Xia HS, Wang X, Lu Q, et al. Comparison of retraction phenomenon and BI-RADS-US descriptors in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses using an automated breast volume scanner. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84:2123-2129.
[38]	Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A. Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:873-878.
[39]	Xiao YM, Chen ZH, Zhou QC, Wang Z. The efficacy of automated breast volume scanning over conventional ultrasonography among patients with breast lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131:293-296.