Comparison of Automated Breast Ultrasound and Hand-Held Breast Ultrasound in the Screening of Dense Breasts

dc.TypeArticlept_BR
dc.contributor.authorPhiladelpho, Fernanda
dc.contributor.authorCalas, Maria Julia Gregorio
dc.contributor.authorCarneiro, Gracy de Almeida Coutinho
dc.contributor.authorSilveira, Isabela Cunha
dc.contributor.authorVaz, Andréia Brandão Ribeiro
dc.contributor.authorNogueira, Adriana Maria Coelho
dc.contributor.authorBergmann, Anke
dc.contributor.authorLopes, Flávia Paiva Proença Lobo
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-09T15:50:51Z
dc.date.available2022-06-09T15:50:51Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractObjective To compare hand-held breast ultrasound (HHBUS) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as screening tool for cancer. Methods A cross-sectional study in patients with mammographically dense breasts was conducted, and both HHBUS and ABUS were performed. Hand-held breast ultrasound was acquired by radiologists and ABUS by mammography technicians and analyzed by breast radiologists. We evaluated the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification of the exam and of the lesion, as well as the amount of time required to perform and read each exam. The statistical analysis employed was measures of central tendency and dispersion, frequencies, Student t test, and a univariate logistic regression, through the odds ratio and its respective 95% confidence interval, and with p < 0.05 considered of statistical significance. Results A total of 440 patients were evaluated. Regarding lesions, HHBUS detected 15 (7.7%) BI-RADS 2, 175 (89.3%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (3%) BI-RADS 4, with 3 being confirmed by biopsy as invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs), and 3 false-positives. Automated breast ultrasound identified 12 (12.9%) BI-RADS 2, 75 (80.7%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (6.4%) BI-RADS 4, including 3 lesions detected by HHBUS and confirmed as IDCs, in addition to 1 invasive lobular carcinoma and 2 high-risk lesions not detected by HHBUS. The amount of time required for the radiologist to read the ABUS was statistically inferior compared with the time required to read the HHBUS (p< 0.001). The overall concordance was 80.9%. A total of 219 lesions were detected, from those 70 lesions by both methods, 126 only by HHBUS (84.9% not suspicious by ABUS) and 23 only by ABUS.pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn0100-7203
dc.identifier.other10.1055/s-0040-1722156
dc.identifier.urihttp://sr-vmlxaph03:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/7353
dc.language.isoenpt_BR
dc.publisherRevista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetríciapt_BR
dc.subjectDense Breast - Mass Screeningpt_BR
dc.subjectProgramas de Rastreamentopt_BR
dc.subjectTamizaje Masivopt_BR
dc.subjectScreeningpt_BR
dc.subjectUltrasonography, Mammarypt_BR
dc.subjectUltrassonografia Mamáriapt_BR
dc.subjectUltrasonografía Mamariapt_BR
dc.subjectBreast Ultrasonographypt_BR
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasmspt_BR
dc.subjectNeoplasias da Mamapt_BR
dc.subjectNeoplasias de la Mamapt_BR
dc.subjectBreast Cancerpt_BR
dc.subject.otherHand-held Breast Ultrasounden
dc.subject.otherAutomated Breast Ultrasounden
dc.titleComparison of Automated Breast Ultrasound and Hand-Held Breast Ultrasound in the Screening of Dense Breastspt_BR

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparison of Automated Breast Ultrasound and Hand-Held Breast Ultrasound in the Screening of Dense Breasts.pdf
Size:
509.83 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.6 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: