Comparison of radial and meander-like breast ultrasound with respect to diagnostic accuracy and examination time

Claudia Jäggi-Wickes, Pascale Brasier-Lutz, Sabine Schaedelin, Rosemarie Burian, Cora-Ann Schoenenberger, Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach, Claudia Jäggi-Wickes, Pascale Brasier-Lutz, Sabine Schaedelin, Rosemarie Burian, Cora-Ann Schoenenberger, Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy of radial breast ultrasound (r-US) to that of conventional meander-like breast ultrasound (m-US), patients of a consecutive, unselected, mixed collective were examined by both scanning methods.

Methods: Out of 1948 dual examinations, 150 revealed suspicious lesions resulting in 168 biopsies taken from 148 patients. Histology confirmed breast cancers in 36 cases. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV were calculated for r-US and m-US. The examination times were recorded.

Results: For m-US and r-US, sensitivity (both 88.9%), specificity (86.4% versus 89.4%), accuracy (86.9% versus 89.3%), PPV (64.0% versus 69.6%), NPV (both 98.3%), false-negative rate (both 5.6%), and rate of cancer missed by one method (both 5.6%) were similar. The mean examination time for r-US (14.8 min) was significantly (p < 0.01) shorter than for m-US (22.6 min).

Conclusion: Because the diagnostic accuracy of r-US and m-US are comparable, r-US can be considered an alternative to m-US in routine breast US with the added benefit of a significantly shorter examination time.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02358837.

Keywords: Diagnostic accuracy; Ductosonography; Examination time; False negative; Meander-like breast ultrasound; Radial breast ultrasound.

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Radial and meander-like ultrasound. a Scheme of radial scanning movement (top) and corresponding ultrasound image (bottom). Left panel: radial movement and radial movement for the axillary tail; right panel: anti-radial movement. b Scheme of meander-like scanning movement in two orthogonal planes (top) and corresponding ultrasound image (bottom). Both ultrasound images are from the same 59-year-old patient diagnosed with invasive ductal breast cancer

References

    1. Rosensweig R, Foy PM, Cole-Beuglet C, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB. Radial scanning of the breast: an alternative to the standard ultrasound technique. J Clin Ultrasound. 1982;10:199–201. doi: 10.1002/jcu.1870100414.
    1. Da Costa D, Taddese A, Cure ML, Gerson D, Poppiti R, Jr, Esserman LE. Common and unusual diseases of the nipple-areolar complex. Radiographics. 2007;27(Suppl 1):S65–77. doi: 10.1148/rg.27si075512.
    1. Stavros AT. Breast ultasound. Philadelphia, PA 19106 USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
    1. Kim WH, Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Yi A, Koo HR, Kim SJ. Intraductal mass on breast ultrasound: final outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:932–937. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9093.
    1. Rissanen T, Reinikainen H, Apaja-Sarkkinen M. Breast sonography in localizing the cause of nipple discharge: comparison with galactography in 52 patients. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:1031–1039. doi: 10.7863/jum.2007.26.8.1031.
    1. Ballesio L, Maggi C, Savelli S, Angeletti M, Rabuffi P, Manganaro L, Porfiri LM. Adjunctive diagnostic value of ultrasonography evaluation in patients with suspected ductal breast disease. Radiol Med. 2007;112:354–365. doi: 10.1007/s11547-007-0146-4.
    1. Madjar H, Rickard M, Jellins J, Otto R. IBUS guidelines for the ultrasonic examination of the breast. IBUS International Faculty. International Breast Ultrasound School. Eur J Ultrasound. 1999;9:99–102. doi: 10.1016/S0929-8266(99)00016-6.
    1. Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology. 2013;268:642–659. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121606.
    1. Ebner L, Bonel HM, Huber A, Ross S, Christe A. Diagnostic performance and additional value of elastosonography in focal breast lesions: statistical correlation between size-dependant strain index measurements, multimodality-BI-RADS score, and histopathology in a clinical routine setting. ISRN Radiol. 2014;2014:396368. doi: 10.1155/2014/396368.
    1. Gheonea IA, Donoiu L, Camen D, Popescu FC, Bondari S. Sonoelastography of breast lesions: a prospective study of 215 cases with histopathological correlation. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2011;52:1209–1214.
    1. Gheonea IA, Stoica Z, Bondari S. Differential diagnosis of breast lesions using ultrasound elastography. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2011;21:301–305. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.90697.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120621.
    1. Wojcinski S, Cassel M, Farrokh A, Soliman AA, Hille U, Schmidt W, Degenhardt F, Hillemanns P. Variations in the elasticity of breast tissue during the menstrual cycle determined by real-time sonoelastography. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:63–72. doi: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.1.63.
    1. Teboul M (2004) Practical ductal echography; guide to intelligent and intelligible ultrasonic imaging of the breast. Editorial Medgen, S.A. ISBN: 84-609-0190-4
    1. (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Atlas®, 4th edn. American College of Radiology (ACR), Reston, VA
    1. Blaker H. Confidence curves and improved exact confidence intervals for discrete distributions. Can J Stat. 2000;28:783–798. doi: 10.2307/3315916.
    1. Zhou X-HO, Mcclish DK, Obuchowski NA. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
    1. Lenz S. Breast ultrasound in office gynecology–ten years of experience. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(Suppl 1):S3–7.
    1. Hille H, Vetter M, Hackeloer BJ. The accuracy of BI-RADS classification of breast ultrasound as a first-line imaging method. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33:160–163. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1281667.
    1. Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Degenhardt F. Diagnostic value of strain ratio measurement in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32:400–405. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245335.
    1. Redling K, Schwab F, Siebert M, Schotzau A, Zanetti-Dallenbach R. Elastography complements ultrasound as principle modality in breast lesion assessment. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82:119–124. doi: 10.1159/000445746.
    1. Li Q, Hu M, Chen Z, Li C, Zhang X, Song Y, Xiang F. Meta-analysis: contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus conventional ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44:919–929. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.01.022.
    1. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Weber S, Thomas A, Fischer T, Slowinski T, Schmidt W, Degenhardt F. Multicenter study of ultrasound real-time tissue elastography in 779 cases for the assessment of breast lesions: improved diagnostic performance by combining the BI-RADS(R)-US classification system with sonoelastography. Ultraschall Med. 2010;31:484–491. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245282.
    1. Stachs A, Hartmann S, Stubert J, Dieterich M, Martin A, Kundt G, Reimer T, Gerber B. Differentiating between malignant and benign breast masses: factors limiting sonoelastographic strain ratio. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34:131–136. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1354913.
    1. Wang SD, Wang L, Li ZX, Wei KL, Liao XH, Chen YY, Huang X. Differential diagnostic performance of acoustic radiation force impulse imaging in small (%3c/=20 mm) breast cancers: is it valuable? Sci Rep. 2017;7:8650. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08004-y.
    1. Ackermann S, Schoenenberger CA, Zanetti-Dallenbach R. Clinical data as an adjunct to ultrasound reduces the false-negative malignancy rate in BI-RADS 3 breast lesions. Ultrasound Int Open. 2016;2:E83–89. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-110657.
    1. Wang D, Zhu K, Tian J, Li Z, Du G, Guo Q, Wu T, Li J. Clinicopathological and ultrasonic features of triple-negative breast cancers: a comparison with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast cancers. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44:1124–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.01.013.
    1. Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG, Choi JJ, Lee JH, Song BJ, Choe BJ, Park S, Kim H. Radiologists' performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14:154–163. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.154.
    1. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology. 2006;241:355–365. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2412051710.
    1. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Madsen EL, Investigators A. Lesion detection and characterization in a breast US phantom: results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Radiology. 2006;239:693–702. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2393051069.
    1. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M, Pisano ED, Jong RA, Evans WP, Morton MJ, Mahoney MC, Larsen LH, Barr RG, Farria DM, Marques HS, Boparai K, Investigators A. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151–2163. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera