Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications

Zanotel, Martina; Bednarova, Iliana; Londero, Viviana; Linda, Anna; Lorenzon, Michele; Girometti, Rossano; Zuiani, Chiara

doi:10.1007/s11547-017-0805-z

Cited by 76 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) has been demonstrated to reduce the amount of time needed for image acquisition and interpretation, as well as to be effective in eliminating the operator dependence of image quality and reproducibility. However, inadequate axillary breast tissue imaging and artifacts caused by the nipple are limitations associated with the ABUS systems 20 , 21 . Thus, there is still a need for additional breast screening to reduce the false positive rate and subsequent unnecessary biopsies as only 20–40% of breast biopsies are cancerous 8 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonic motion imaging of human breast masses: an in vivo clinical feasibility

Saharkhiz

Taback

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-invasive diagnosis of breast cancer is still challenging due to the low specificity of the imaging modalities that calls for unnecessary biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy can be improved by assessing the breast tissue mechanical properties associated with pathological changes. Harmonic motion imaging (HMI) is an elasticity imaging technique that uses acoustic radiation force to evaluate the localized mechanical properties of the underlying tissue. Herein, we studied the in vivo feasibility of a clinical HMI system to differentiate breast tumors based on their relative HMI displacements, in human subjects. We performed HMI scans in 10 female subjects with breast masses: five benign and five malignant masses. Results revealed that both benign and malignant masses were stiffer than the surrounding tissues. However, malignant tumors underwent lower mean HMI displacement (1.1 ± 0.5 µm) compared to benign tumors (3.6 ± 1.5 µm) and the adjacent non-cancerous tissue (6.4 ± 2.5 µm), which allowed to differentiate between tumor types. Additionally, the excised breast specimens of the same patients (n = 5) were imaged post-surgically, where there was an excellent agreement between the in vivo and ex vivo findings, confirmed with histology. Higher displacement contrast between cancerous and non-cancerous tissue was found ex vivo, potentially due to the lower nonlinearity in the elastic properties of ex vivo tissue. This preliminary study lays the foundation for the potential complementary application of HMI in clinical practice in conjunction with the B-mode to classify suspicious breast masses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonic motion imaging of human breast masses: an in vivo clinical feasibility

Saharkhiz

Taback

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have focused on the application of ABUS in different clinical settings [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] over the last few years because this technique was originally developed for screening as an adjunctive tool to overcome limitations of mammography. [6][7][8] ABUS has been tested as a second look procedure after magnetic resonance, [12][13][14] for monitoring tumor response to neoadjuvant treatment in BC, 19,20 and in the preoperative setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated breast ultrasound compared to hand-held ultrasound in surveillance after breast-conserving surgery

Depretto

Liguori

Primolevo

et al. 2020

Tumori

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate the agreement between automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in surveillance of women with a history of breast cancer in terms of recurrences or new ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancer. Methods: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and informed consent was waived. From April to June 2016, women with dense breasts undergoing annual surveillance with mammography and HHUS after breast-conserving surgery were offered supplemental ABUS (Invenia). HHUS was performed by a breast radiologist and ABUS by a trained technician. Images were reviewed by 2 breast radiologists. A per-patient BI-RADS category was independently assigned in all cases and categories were dichotomized into negative (1, 2, 3) and positive (4, 5). Cohen κ, McNemar, and Wilcoxon statistics were used. Final pathology was used as reference standard for malignant lesions. Results: A total of 154 women (mean age 62±11 years) were enrolled. Time from surgery was a mean of 8±6 years. Cancer prevalence was 4/154 (2.6%). Interreader agreement for ABUS was 1. Intermethod interreader agreement for HHUS and ABUS was substantial for BI-RADS categories (κ = 0.785) and for dichotomic assessment (κ = 0.794). There was no difference in dichotomic assignment between 2 readers ( p = 0.5) but a significant difference in assigning BI-RADS categories ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: A substantial agreement resulted between HHUS and ABUS in surveillance of women with a previous history of breast cancer. In particular, ABUS recognized all cancers detected by HHUS and could play a role in first-level surveillance of women at intermediate risk.

show abstract

“…The main advantage of ABUS over the usual hand-held whole-breast ultrasound (HHUS) is the standardised acquisition with a decrease in both operator dependency and physician workload. With this technique, the time of image acquisition is separated from image interpretation [3]. The ABUS system has a standardised acquisition protocol that can be performed, after a short period of training, by the radiographer or the sonographer, based on different countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast ultrasound: automated or hand-held? Exploring patients’ experience and preference

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Our aim was to compare women's experience with automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) versus breast hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and to evaluate their acceptance rate. Methods: After ethical approval, from October 2017 to March 2018, 79 consecutive patients were enrolled in this prospective study. On the same day, patients underwent HHUS followed by ABUS. Each patient's experience was assessed using the modified testing morbidities index (TMI) (the lower the score, the better is the experience). Nine items were assessed for both techniques: seven directly related to the examination technique (pain or discomfort immediately before (preparation), during and after testing, fear or anxiety immediately before (preparation) and during testing, physical and mental function after testing) and two indirectly related to the examination technique (embarrassment during testing and overall satisfaction). Finally, we asked patients to choose between the two techniques for a potential next breast examination. Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used. Results: The median TMI score for the seven items was found to be significantly better for HHUS (8, interquartile range [IQR] 7-11) compared to ABUS (9, IQR 8-12) (p = 0.003). The item 'pain/discomfort during the test' (p < 0.001) was significantly higher for ABUS compared to HHUS. Instead, the item 'fear/anxiety before the test' was higher for HHUS (p = 0.001). Overall, 40.5% of the patients chose HHUS, 29.1% chose ABUS, and 30.4% were unable to choose. Conclusions: ABUS and HHUS exams were well tolerated and accepted. However, HHUS was perceived to be less painful than ABUS.

show abstract

Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications

Cited by 76 publications

References 56 publications

Harmonic motion imaging of human breast masses: an in vivo clinical feasibility

Harmonic motion imaging of human breast masses: an in vivo clinical feasibility

Automated breast ultrasound compared to hand-held ultrasound in surveillance after breast-conserving surgery

Breast ultrasound: automated or hand-held? Exploring patients’ experience and preference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About