Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Automated Volume Breast Scanner to Hand Held Ultrasound for Diagnostic Breast Exam

Women age >18 scheduled for a diagnostic ultrasound examination had both a hand held ultrasound and an automated breast volume scan. Exams were performed by different technologists. Images were blinded and blinded read for diagnostic accuracy of the two examinations

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Breast Mass
• Intervention / Treatment: Device: Ultrasound

Detailed Description

Women aged 18 years and above presenting for a diagnostic ultrasound secondary to a palpable mass, abnormal mammogram, follow-up ultrasound abnormality, or discharge were asked to participate in the study. If the patient had both a palpable mass and a mammogram that had an abnormality the indication was listed as a palpable abnormality. Exclusion criteria included inability to give informed consent and abnormality of the breast that is larger than one quadrant. No patients were excluded from the study.

All patients received both a Hand Held (HH) and Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS) ultrasound. Patients were initially randomized to have either a HH or an ABVS. The HH ultrasound was performed by one of 4 sonographers that had a minimum of 10 years experience in breast ultrasound. A different sonographer than the one performing the HH or mammography technician performed ABVS. All technologists performing ABVS participated in a training course on ABVS and performed at least 10 patients satisfactorily before beginning the study. The choice of a mammography technician or sonography to perform the ABVS was randomized. Both the sonographer performing the HH and the sonographer or mammography technologist performing the ABVS were provided the patient's history and results of the mammogram if performed for placement of the ABVS and region of interest for the HH. However the results of the HH or ABVS were not available to the person performing the second examination.

Final diagnosis was performed either by a 12 gauge core biopsy (Celero, Hologic, Marlborough, MA ) or confirmation of a benign lesion by no significant change over 2 years.

• Study Type: Observational
• Enrollment (Actual): 90

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: Female

• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Women aged 18 years and above presenting for a diagnostic ultrasound secondary to a palpable mass, abnormal mammogram, follow-up ultrasound abnormality, or discharge were asked to participate in the study.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Women aged 18 years and above presenting for a diagnostic ultrasound secondary to a palpable mass, abnormal mammogram, follow-up ultrasound abnormality, or discharge were asked to participate in the study.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Unable to give informed consent
• breast abnormality greater than one quadrant

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Observational Models: Case-Only
• Time Perspectives: Prospective

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Diagnostic Accuracy	Diagnostic performance assuming BI-RADS category 1, 2, and 3 were benign and BI-RADS category 4 and 5 were malignant and using biopsy or clinical stability for two years as gold standard was assessed through ROC curves analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, Area Under the Curve (AUC) are presented along with 95% CI. Pairwise comparison of AUC between readers and methodologies are also given using z-statistics (6). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All tests were two-sided.	one day

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Comparison of sonographer and mammography technologist performing Automated volume breast scanner	Diagnostic performance assuming BI-RADS category 1, 2, and 3 were benign and BI-RADS category 4 and 5 were malignant and using biopsy or clinical stability for two years as gold standard was assessed through ROC curves analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, Area Under the Curve (AUC) are presented along with 95% CI. Pairwise comparison of AUC between readers and methodologies are also given using z-statistics (6). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All tests were two-sided.	1 day

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Northeastern Ohio Radiology Research and Education Fund
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Richard G Barr, MD, PhD, Northeastern Ohio Radiology Research and Education Fund

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: July 1, 2013
• Primary Completion (Actual): August 1, 2013
• Study Completion (Actual): August 1, 2013

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 25, 2016
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 27, 2016
• First Posted (Estimate): June 2, 2016

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimate): June 2, 2016
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 27, 2016
• Last Verified: May 1, 2016

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: ultrasound; breast; diagnostic exam; automated volume breast scanner
• Other Study ID Numbers: AVBS DIAG

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: No