Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ninho.inca.gov.br/jspui/handle/123456789/7353
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
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.identifier.issn0100-7203-
dc.identifier.other10.1055/s-0040-1722156-
dc.identifier.urihttp://sr-vmlxaph03:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/7353-
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.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
dc.TypeArticlept_BR
Appears in Collections:Artigo de Periódicos da Pesquisa Clínica



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.