Comparison of Automated Breast Volume Scanning and Hand-Held Ultrasound in the Detection of Breast Cancer: an Analysis of 5,566 Patient Evaluations

  • Choi, Woo Jung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Cha, Joo Hee (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Kim, Hak Hee (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Shin, Hee Jung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Kim, Hyunji (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Chae, Eun Young (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Hong, Min Ji (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan)
  • Published : 2014.11.28


Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in the detection of breast cancer in a large population group with a long-term follow-up, and to investigate whether different ultrasound systems may influence the estimation of cancer detection. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. From September 2010 to August 2011, a total of 1,866 ABVS and 3,700 HHUS participants, who underwent these procedures at our institute, were included in this study. Cancers occurring during the study and subsequent follow-up were evaluated. The reference standard was a combination of histology and follow-up imaging (${\geq}12months$). The recall rate, cancer detection yield, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated with exact 95% confidence intervals. Results: The recall rate was 2.57 per 1,000 (48/1,866) for ABVS and 3.57 per 1,000 (132/3,700) for HHUS, with a significant difference (p=0.048). The cancer detection yield was 3.8 per 1,000 for ABVS and 2.7 per 1,000 for HHUS. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.7% for ABVS and 96.5% for HHUS with statistical significance (p=0.018). The specificity of ABVS and HHUS were 97.8%, 96.7%, respectively (p=0.022). Conclusions: ABVS shows a comparable diagnostic performance to HHUS. ABVS is an effective supplemental tool for mammography in breast cancer detection in a large population.


  1. Akbari ME, Haghighatkhah H, Shafiee M, et al (2012). Mammography and ultrasonography reports compared with tissue diagnosis-an evidence based study in Iran, 2010. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 1907-10.
  2. Benson SR, Blue J, Judd K, Harman JE (2004). Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg, 188, 381-5.
  3. Berg WA (2007). Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am, 45, 895-906.
  4. Berg WA (2009). Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? Am J Radiol, 192, 390-9.
  5. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al (2008). Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA, 299, 2151-63.
  6. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al (2004). Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology, 233, 830-49.
  7. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al (2012). 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, 307, 1394-404.
  8. Boonlikit S (2013). Comparison of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic women. APJCP, 14, 7731-6.
  9. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al (2007). Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 356, 227-36.
  10. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Park JS, Kim SJ (2011). Radiologists' performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). Europ J Radiol, 78, 99-103.
  11. Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH, et al (2006). Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: comparison of twodimensional and three-dimensional US. Radiology, 240, 26-32.
  12. Chou Y-H, Tiu C-M, Chen J, Chang R-F (2007). Automated full-field breast ultrasonography: the past and the present. J Med Ultrasound, 15, 31-44.
  13. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA (2003). Mammography. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology.
  14. Jung KW, Park S, Won YJ, et al (2012). Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2012. Cancer Res Treat, 44, 25-31.
  15. Kang MH, Park EC, Choi KS, et al (2013). The national cancer screening program for breast cancer in the republic of Korea: is it cost-effective? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2059-65.
  16. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ (2010a). Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiology, 20, 734-42.
  17. Kelly KM, Dean J, Lee SJ, Comulada WS (2010b). Breast cancer detection: radiologists' performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound. Eur Radiology, 20, 2557-64.
  18. Kim Y, Jun JK, Choi KS, Lee HY, Park EC (2011). Overview of the National Cancer screening programme and the cancer screening status in Korea. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 725-30.
  19. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002). 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, 225, 165-75.
  20. Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S, et al (2009). Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol, 71, 109-15.
  21. Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A (2012). Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol, 81, 873-8.
  22. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CR, Rubin E (2003). Ultrasound. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology.
  23. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, et al (2011). Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. Am J Radiol, 197, 747-54.
  24. Suh M, Choi KS, Lee YY, Park B, Jun JK (2013). Cancer screening in Korea, 2012: results from the Korean national Cancer Screening Survey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6459-63.
  25. Tozaki M, Fukuma E (2010). Accuracy of determining preoperative cancer extent measured by automated breast ultrasonography. Jpn J Radiol, 28, 771-3.
  26. Wang FL, Chen F, Yin H, et al (2013). Effects of age, breast density and volume on breast cancer diagnosis: a retrospective comparison of sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography in China's rural areas. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2277-82.
  27. Wang ZL, Xu JH, Li JL, Huang Y, Tang J (2012). Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med, 117, 1287-93.
  28. Weaver DL, Rosenberg RD, Barlow WE, et al (2006). Pathologic findings from the breast cancer surveillance consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. Cancer, 106, 732-42.
  29. Yoo KB, Kwon JA, Cho E, et al (2013). Is mammography for breast cancer screening cost-effective in both Western and asian countries?: results of a systematic review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 4141-9.

Cited by

  1. Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications pp.1826-6983, 2017,
  2. Dedicated computer-aided detection software for automated 3D breast ultrasound; an efficient tool for the radiologist in supplemental screening of women with dense breasts vol.28, pp.7, 2018,
  3. Automated Three-dimensional Breast US for Screening: Technique, Artifacts, and Lesion Characterization vol.38, pp.3, 2018,
  4. Invited Commentary: Handheld or Automated—Staying Focused on the Goals of Screening US, with Response from Drs van Zelst and Mann vol.38, pp.3, 2018,