Can Automated Breast Volume Scanning be an Alternative Tool toHandheld Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Screening?

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Sep 20, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31524/bkkmedj.2017.09.005
Keywords:
automated breast volume scanning, handheld ultrasonography, ABVS, HHUS, breast cancer screening

Main Article Content

Rattawach Ariyaratrangsee, MD
Worachart Saksirinukul, MD
Thanyalak Ninpiethoon, MD
Kong Jaroenrad, MD
Phatarachate Klaiklern, MD
Umpawan Waenon
Surin Kwanon
Wannisa Suwannarat
Boontawee Alipariyakul

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To assess diagnostic value of automated breast volume scanning(ABVS) versus handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) in breast cancer screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 110 participants received an ABVS examinationcompared with HHUS which was set up as a standard tool. The scans were interpretedby specialists blinded to the results of breast imaging and medical history. CohenKappa value was used to interpret agreement between diagnostic tools.

RESULTS: On the basis of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)classification, of the 110 cases, an agreement was achieved in 102 cases (92.7%).Kappa value (K) was 0.885 representing almost perfect agreement.

CONCLUSION: We concluded that ABVS is comparable to HHUS as an adjunctivetool to mammography for screening of breast cancer

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Ariyaratrangsee R, Saksirinukul W, Ninpiethoon T, Jaroenrad K, Klaiklern P, Waenon U, Kwanon S, Suwannarat W, Alipariyakul B. Can Automated Breast Volume Scanning be an Alternative Tool toHandheld Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Screening?. BKK Med J [Internet]. 2017 Sep. 20 [cited 2024 Nov. 22];13(2):27. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/bkkmedj/article/view/221906
Issue
Vol. 13 No. 2 (2017): September
Section
Original Article

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

1. Imsamran W. Hospital based cancer registry annual report 2015. National Cancer Institute Department of Medical Services Ministry of Public Health Thailand. 2015:1-3.
2. 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; 225:165-75
3. Brem RF, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman J, et al. Screening breast ultrasound: past, present, and future. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:234-40.
4. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, 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; 307:1394-404.
5. Feig S. Cost effectiveness of mammography, MRI, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48:879-91.
6. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Reston VA, American College of Radiology; 2013.
7. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-74.
8. Kelly KM, Dean J, Lee SJ, et al. Breast cancer detection: radiologists’ performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2010;20:2557-64.
9. Golatta M, Baggs C, Schweitzer-Martin M, et al. Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;291:889-95.
10. 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;299:2151-63.
11. Kaplan SS. Automated whole breast ultrasound. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:539-46