Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Han Song Mun, Eun Young Ko, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Sook Ko, Ji Soo Choi, Haejung Kim, Myoung Kyoung Kim, Jieun Kim
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category.","authors":"Han Song Mun, Eun Young Ko, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Sook Ko, Ji Soo Choi, Haejung Kim, Myoung Kyoung Kim, Jieun Kim","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15020212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives</b>: This study aimed to compare ultrasound (US) findings between automated and handheld breast ultrasound (ABUS and HHUS, respectively) in small breast cancers, based on the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category. <b>Methods</b>: We included 51 women (mean age: 52 years; range: 39-66 years) with breast cancer (invasive or DCIS), all of whom underwent both ABUS and HHUS. Patients with tumors measuring ≤1 cm on either modality were enrolled. Two breast radiologists retrospectively evaluated multiple imaging features, including shape, orientation, margin, echo pattern, and posterior characteristics and assigned BI-RADS categories. Lesion sizes were compared between US and pathological findings. Statistical analyses were performed using Bowker's test of symmetry, a paired <i>t</i>-test, and a cumulative link mixed model. <b>Results</b>: ABUS assigned lower BI-RADS categories than HHUS while still maintaining malignancy suspicion in categories 4A or higher (54.8% consistent with HHUS; 37.3% downcategorized in ABUS, <i>p</i> = 0.005). While ABUS demonstrated less aggressive margins in some cases (61.3% consistent with HHUS; 25.8% showing fewer suspicious margins in ABUS), this difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.221). Similarly, ABUS exhibited slightly greater height-width ratios compared to HHUS (median, interquartile range: 0.98, 0.7-1.12 vs. 0.86, 0.74-1.10, <i>p</i> = 0.166). No significant differences were observed in other US findings or tumor sizes between the two modalities (all <i>p</i> > 0.05). <b>Conclusions</b>: Small breast cancers exhibited suspicious US features on both ABUS and HHUS, yet they were assigned lower BI-RADS assessment categories on ABUS compared to HHUS. Therefore, when conducting breast cancer screening with ABUS, it is important to remain attentive to even subtle suspicious findings, and active consideration for biopsy may be warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11763899/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15020212","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare ultrasound (US) findings between automated and handheld breast ultrasound (ABUS and HHUS, respectively) in small breast cancers, based on the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category. Methods: We included 51 women (mean age: 52 years; range: 39-66 years) with breast cancer (invasive or DCIS), all of whom underwent both ABUS and HHUS. Patients with tumors measuring ≤1 cm on either modality were enrolled. Two breast radiologists retrospectively evaluated multiple imaging features, including shape, orientation, margin, echo pattern, and posterior characteristics and assigned BI-RADS categories. Lesion sizes were compared between US and pathological findings. Statistical analyses were performed using Bowker's test of symmetry, a paired t-test, and a cumulative link mixed model. Results: ABUS assigned lower BI-RADS categories than HHUS while still maintaining malignancy suspicion in categories 4A or higher (54.8% consistent with HHUS; 37.3% downcategorized in ABUS, p = 0.005). While ABUS demonstrated less aggressive margins in some cases (61.3% consistent with HHUS; 25.8% showing fewer suspicious margins in ABUS), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.221). Similarly, ABUS exhibited slightly greater height-width ratios compared to HHUS (median, interquartile range: 0.98, 0.7-1.12 vs. 0.86, 0.74-1.10, p = 0.166). No significant differences were observed in other US findings or tumor sizes between the two modalities (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Small breast cancers exhibited suspicious US features on both ABUS and HHUS, yet they were assigned lower BI-RADS assessment categories on ABUS compared to HHUS. Therefore, when conducting breast cancer screening with ABUS, it is important to remain attentive to even subtle suspicious findings, and active consideration for biopsy may be warranted.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信