Initial results of the FUSION-X-US prototype combining 3D automated breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis

PurposeTo determine the feasibility of a prototype device combining 3D-automated breast ultrasound (ABVS) and digital breast tomosynthesis in a single device to detect and characterize breast lesions.MethodsIn this prospective feasibility study, the FUSION-X-US prototype was used to perform digital breast tomosynthesis and ABVS in 23 patients with an indication for tomosynthesis based on current guidelines after clinical examination and standard imaging. The ABVS and tomosynthesis images of the prototype were interpreted separately by two blinded experts. The study compares the detection and BI-RADS® scores of breast lesions using only the tomosynthesis and ABVS data from the FUSION-X-US prototype to the results of the complete diagnostic workup.ResultsImage acquisition and processing by the prototype was fast and accurate, with some limitations in ultrasound coverage and image quality. In the diagnostic workup, 29 solid lesions (23 benign, including three cases with microcalcifications, and six malignant lesions) were identified. Using the prototype, all malignant lesions were detected and classified as malignant or suspicious by both investigators.ConclusionSolid breast lesions can be localized accurately and fast by the Fusion-X-US system. Technical improvements of the ultrasound image quality and ultrasound coverage are needed to further study this new device.Key PointsThe prototype combines tomosynthesis and automated 3D-ultrasound (ABVS) in one device.It allows accurate detection of malignant lesions, directly correlating tomosynthesis and ABVS data.The diagnostic evaluation of the prototype-acquired data was interpreter-independent.The prototype provides a time-efficient and technically reliable diagnostic procedure.The combination of tomosynthesis and ABVS is a promising diagnostic approach.

[1]  Per Skaane,et al.  Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis , 2016, Breast Cancer.

[2]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. , 1998, Radiology.

[3]  C. Merritt Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer , 2009 .

[4]  A. Vourtsis,et al.  The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women , 2018, European Radiology.

[5]  K. Winzer,et al.  [Combination of mammography with automated ultrasound (Sono-X) in routine diagnosis?]. , 1998, Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie.

[6]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  N. Houssami,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: the future of mammography screening or much ado about nothing? , 2013, Expert review of medical devices.

[8]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Breast Mass Characterization Using 3‐Dimensional Automated Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2013, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[9]  Peter Hillemanns,et al.  Diagnostic performance and inter-observer concordance in lesion detection with the automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) , 2013, BMC Medical Imaging.

[10]  P C Brennan,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis: a new future for breast imaging? , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[11]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[12]  S. Wall,et al.  Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials , 1993, The Lancet.

[13]  K. Leifland,et al.  Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: Report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[14]  M. Golatta,et al.  Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography , 2015, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[15]  M. Helvie,et al.  Multi-modality 3D breast imaging with X-Ray tomosynthesis and automated ultrasound , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[16]  M. Golatta,et al.  Interobserver reliability of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) interpretation and agreement of ABVS findings with hand held breast ultrasound (HHUS), mammography and pathology results. , 2013, European journal of radiology.

[17]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[18]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[19]  M. Giger,et al.  Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers. , 2016, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. , 1997, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[21]  R. Kreienberg,et al.  First Revision of the German S3 Guideline ‘Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer’ , 2008, Breast Care.

[22]  A. Kapur,et al.  Combination of Digital Mammography with Semi-automated 3D Breast Ultrasound , 2004, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[23]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[24]  Marilyn A Roubidoux,et al.  Update on new technologies in digital mammography , 2014, International journal of women's health.

[25]  Emily White,et al.  Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.