Premium
Prospective Study Comparing Two Second‐Look Ultrasound Techniques
Author(s) -
Kim Yoonsoo,
Kang Bong Joo,
Kim Sung Hun,
Lee Eun Jae
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.7863/ultra.15.11076
Subject(s) - medicine , breast cancer , magnetic resonance imaging , radiology , breast mri , prospective cohort study , ultrasound , modality (human–computer interaction) , lesion , breast ultrasound , mammography , nuclear medicine , cancer , surgery , human–computer interaction , computer science
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of handheld ultrasound (US) and an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) as second‐look US techniques subsequent to preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods We prospectively enrolled patients with breast cancer who underwent handheld US and ABVS examinations as second‐look US modalities for additional suspicious lesions found via preoperative breast MRI. We reviewed each second‐look US modality independently and evaluated the detection rate of each modality. We then analyzed the correlation between the detection rate and the MRI factors (size, distance, and enhancement type). Results From March to September 2014, both types of second‐look US examinations were performed on 40 patients with breast cancer who had 76 additional suspicious lesions detected via preoperative breast MRI. The detection rate of the ABVS was higher than that of handheld US for the second‐look examination (94.7% versus 86.8%; P < .05). Among the 76 total lesions, 7 were only identified by the ABVS, 1 was only found by handheld US, and 3 were not detected by either the ABVS or handheld US. When we analyzed the correlation between the detection rate and MRI factors, the only meaningful factor was the enhancement type. The ability to detect a nonmass lesion was lower than the ability to detect a mass‐type lesion ( P < 0.05) for both the ABVS and handheld US. Conclusions For a second‐look US examination subsequent to preoperative breast MRI in patients with breast cancer, the ABVS is a more efficient modality than handheld US for preoperative evaluations. However, both techniques have limitations in detecting nonmass lesions.