Multiplanar Reconstructions of 3D Automated Breast Ultrasound Improve Lesion Differentiation by Radiologists.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To investigate the value of multiplanar reconstructions (MPRs) of automated three-dimensional (3D) breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared to transverse evaluation only, in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five breast radiologists evaluated ABUS scans of 96 female patients with biopsy-proven abnormalities (36 malignant and 60 benign). They classified the most suspicious lesion based on the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon using the transverse scans only. A likelihood-of-malignancy (LOM) score (0-100) and a BI-RADS final assessment were assigned. Thereafter, the MPR was provided and readers scored the cases again. In addition, they rated the presence of spiculation and retraction in the coronal plane on a five-point scale called Spiculation and Retraction Severity Index (SRSI). Reader performance was analyzed with receiver-operating characteristics analysis. RESULTS The area under the curve increased from 0.82 to 0.87 (P = .01) after readers were shown the reconstructed planes. The SRSI scores are highly correlated (Spearman's r) with the final LOM scores (range, r = 0.808-0.872) and ΔLOM scores (range, r = 0.525-0.836). Readers downgraded 3%-18% of the biopsied benign lesions to BI-RADS 2 after MPR evaluation. Inter-reader agreement for SRSI was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.617). Inter-reader agreement of the BI-RADS final assessment improved from 0.367 to 0.536 after MPRs were read. CONCLUSIONS Full 3D evaluation of ABUS using MPR improves differentiation of breast lesions in comparison to evaluating only transverse planes. Results suggest that the added value of MPR might be related to visualization of spiculation and retraction patterns in the coronal reconstructions.

[1]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[2]  D Rotten,et al.  Analysis of normal breast tissue and of solid breast masses using three‐dimensional ultrasound mammography , 1999, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[3]  Ellen Kao,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. , 2009, Radiology.

[4]  L. Tabár,et al.  Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. , 2015, Radiology.

[5]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[6]  Michelle L. Robbin,et al.  AIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of a Breast Ultrasound Examination , 2009, Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[7]  W. Buchberger,et al.  Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. , 2000, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[8]  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.

[9]  Q. Zhang,et al.  Detection of Breast Lesions using an Automated Breast Volume Scanner System , 2012, The Journal of international medical research.

[10]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Continuous versus categorical data for ROC analysis: some quantitative considerations. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[11]  M. Tozaki,et al.  Optimal scanning technique to cover the whole breast using an automated breast volume scanner , 2010, Japanese Journal of Radiology.

[12]  T. Franquet,et al.  Spiculated lesions of the breast: mammographic-pathologic correlation. , 1993, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[13]  Kunio Doi,et al.  Independent versus sequential reading in ROC studies of computer-assist modalities: analysis of components of variance. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[14]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[15]  C. Spearman The proof and measurement of association between two things. By C. Spearman, 1904. , 1987, The American journal of psychology.

[16]  M Reiser,et al.  Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[17]  Qing Dai,et al.  Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[18]  G. Colditz,et al.  Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  M. Mainiero,et al.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. , 2006, Radiology.

[20]  Xi Lin,et al.  Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[21]  C. Merritt,et al.  Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. , 2001, Seminars in roentgenology.

[22]  C A Roe,et al.  Statistical Comparison of Two ROC-curve Estimates Obtained from Partially-paired Datasets , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  Jie Tang,et al.  Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography , 2012, La radiologia medica.

[24]  Yulei Jiang,et al.  BI-RADS data should not be used to estimate ROC curves. , 2010, Radiology.

[25]  Qing Dai,et al.  Interobserver agreement for sonograms of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[26]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Influence of study design in receiver operating characteristics studies: sequential versus independent reading , 2014, Journal of medical imaging.

[27]  K. Kelly,et al.  Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts , 2009, European Radiology.

[28]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

[29]  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.

[30]  Ki Keun Oh,et al.  Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. , 2008, European journal of radiology.

[31]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. , 2006, Radiology.

[32]  C. Spearman The proof and measurement of association between two things. , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[33]  E. Sedgwick The breast ultrasound lexicon: breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2011, Seminars in roentgenology.

[34]  Markus Hahn,et al.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review , 2009, BMC Cancer.

[35]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[36]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. , 2014, Radiology.

[37]  Yi Wang,et al.  Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. , 2013, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[38]  S. Wojcinski,et al.  The Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases , 2011, International journal of women's health.