Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Radiologists' Performance for Detecting Lesions and the Interobserver Variability of Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound

  • Kim, Sung Hun (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kang, Bong Joo (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Choi, Byung Gil (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Choi, Jae Jung (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Ji Hye (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Song, Byung Joo (Department of General Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Choe, Byung Joo (Department of General Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Sarah (Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Hyunbin (CMC Clinical Research Coordinating Center, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Published : 2013.04.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the detection performance of the automated whole breast ultrasound (AWUS) with that of the hand-held breast ultrasound (HHUS) and to evaluate the interobserver variability in the interpretation of the AWUS. Materials and Methods: AWUS was performed in 38 breast cancer patients. A total of 66 lesions were included: 38 breast cancers, 12 additional malignancies and 16 benign lesions. Three breast radiologists independently reviewed the AWUS data and analyzed the breast lesions according to the BI-RADS classification. Results: The detection rate of malignancies was 98.0% for HHUS and 90.0%, 88.0% and 96.0% for the three readers of the AWUS. The sensitivity and the specificity were 98.0% and 62.5% in HHUS, 90.0% and 87.5% for reader 1, 88.0% and 81.3% for reader 2, and 96.0% and 93.8% for reader 3, in AWUS. There was no significant difference in the radiologists detection performance, sensitivity and specificity (p > 0.05) between the two modalities. The interobserver agreement was fair to good for the ultrasonographic features, categorization, size, and the location of breast masses. Conclusion: AWUS is thought to be useful for detecting breast lesions. In comparison with HHUS, AWUS shows no significant difference in the detection rate, sensitivity and the specificity, with high degrees of interobserver agreement.

Keywords

References

  1. Chou, YH, Tiu, CM, Chen, J, Chang, RF,Automated full-field breast ultra-sonography: the past and the present, J Med Ultrasound, 15, 1, 31-44(2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-6441(08)60022-3
  2. Shipley, JA, Duck, FA, Goddard, DA, Hillman, MR, Halliwell, M, Jones, MG,Automated quantitative volumetric breast ultrasound data-acquisition system, Ultrasound Med Biol, 31, 2, 905-917(2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.03.007
  3. Tozaki, M, Fukuma, E,Accuracy of determining preoperative cancer extent measured by automated breast ultrasonography, Jpn J Radiol, 28, 3, 771-773(2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-010-0499-9
  4. Kotsianos-Hermle, D, Wirth, S, Fischer, T, Hiltawsky, KM, Reiser, M,First clinical use of a standardized three-dimensional ultrasound for breast imaging, Eur J Radiol, 71, 4, 102-108(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.002
  5. Chang, JM, Moon, WK, Cho, N, Park, JS, Kim, SJ,Radiologists' performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS), Eur J Radiol, 78, 5, 99-103(2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.074
  6. Wenkel, E, Heckmann, M, Heinrich, M, Schwab, SA, Uder, M, Schulz-Wendtland, R,Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification--a pilot study, Rofo, 180, 6, 804-808(2008) https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1027563
  7. 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, 71, 7, 109-115(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.001
  8. Landis, JR, Koch, GG,The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, 33, 8, 159-174(1977) https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  9. Kelly, KM, Dean, J, Comulada, WS, Lee, SJ,Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts, Eur Radiol, 20, 9, 734-742(2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1588-y
  10. Berg, WA, Blume, JD, Cormack, JB, Mendelson, EB,Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization, Radiology, 241, 10, 355-365(2006) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2412051710
  11. Buchberger, W, Niehoff, A, Obrist, P, DeKoekkoek-Doll, P, Dünser, M,Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography, Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 21, 11, 325-336(2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-2171(00)90027-1
  12. Schnarkowski, P, Schmidt, D, Milz, P, Kessler, M, Reiser, MF,[Comparison between current and high resolution ultrasound for diagnosis of breast lesions], Ultraschall Med, 17, 12, 190-194(1996)
  13. Lazarus, E, Mainiero, MB, Schepps, B, Koelliker, SL, Livingston, LS,BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value, Radiology, 239, 13, 385-391(2006) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392042127
  14. Park, CS, Lee, JH, Yim, HW, Kang, BJ, Kim, HS, Jung, JI,Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-ultrasound, First Edition (2003), Korean J Radiol, 8, 14, 397-402(2007) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2007.8.5.397
  15. Lee, HJ, Kim, EK, Kim, MJ, Youk, JH, Lee, JY, Kang, DR,Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound, Eur J Radiol, 65, 15, 293-298(2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.008
  16. Abdullah, N, Mesurolle, B, El-Khoury, M, Kao, E,Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses, Radiology, 252, 16, 665-672(2009) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2523080670

Cited by

  1. Interobserver agreement on the interpretation of automated whole breast ultrasonography vol.33, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.14015
  2. Diagnostic performance of the automated breast volume scanner: a systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign and malignan vol.25, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3759-3
  3. Vision 20/20: Mammographic breast density and its clinical applications : Mammographic breast density and its clinical applications vol.42, pp.12, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4935141
  4. Gel Pad Application for Automated Breast Sonography vol.34, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.34.4.713
  5. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study vol.56, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185114528835
  6. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  7. Detectability and Usefulness of Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound in Patients with Suspicious Microcalcifications on Mammography: Comparison with Handheld Breast Ultrasound vol.19, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2016.19.4.429
  8. Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions vol.57, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115574872
  9. Tumor de células gigantes de la vaina tendinosa de la mano. Estudio de la epidemiología, eficacia de las pruebas de imagen en su diagnóstico y análisis de la recidiva vol.44, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ricma.2016.01.003
  10. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  11. Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications vol.123, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0805-z
  12. Automated Breast Ultrasonography (ABUS) in the Screening and Diagnostic Setting : Indications and Practical Use vol.25, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.02.014
  13. Image quality and artifacts in automated breast ultrasonography vol.38, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.18016
  14. Screening Breast Ultrasound Using Handheld or Automated Technique in Women with Dense Breasts vol.1, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz055
  15. Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening for Dense Breasts vol.21, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0176
  16. Preferences and Attitudes Regarding Adjunct Breast Cancer Screening Among Patients with Dense Breasts vol.2, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz093
  17. Comparison of radial and meander-like breast ultrasound with respect to diagnostic accuracy and examination time vol.301, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05554-x
  18. Breast ultrasound tumour classification: A Machine Learning—Radiomics based approach vol.38, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12713
  19. Clinical Application of Automated Breast Ultrasound vol.6, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.18525/cu.2021.6.2.35
  20. Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS)-Based Radiomic Nomogram: A Potential Tool for Reducing Unnecessary Biopsies of BI-RADS 4 Lesions vol.12, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010172