Radial and meander-like Breast Ultrasound demonstrate similar diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility for BI-RADS 3 Lesions

Article Sidebar

PDF Download
Published May 25, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v9i5.2416

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Submit your own article

Register as an author to reserve your spot in the next issue of the Medical Research Archives.

Author Registration

Join the Society

The European Society of Medicine is more than a professional association. We are a community. Our members work in countries across the globe, yet are united by a common goal: to promote health and health equity, around the world.

Join Europe’s leading medical society and discover the many advantages of membership, including free article publication.

Membership

Main Article Content

Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach
St.Claraspital Basel
Pascale Brasier-Lutz
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Basel
Claudia Jäggi-Wickes
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Basel
Sabine Schaedelin
Department of Clinical Research, Statistics and Data Management, University Basel
Rosemarie Burian
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Basel
Cora-Ann Schoenenberger
Department of Chemistry, University Basel and Gynecology/Gynecologic Oncology, St.Claraspital Basel

Abstract

Introduction


Radial ultrasound (r-US) or ductosonography is usually applied as an adjunct to meander-like ultrasound (m-US) but rarely as the sole scanning method. Here we compare r-US and m-US with regard to breast lesions detected and interpreted as BI-RADS 3 , i.e. probably benign.


Materials and Methods


Eligible patients received a meander-like and a radial breast ultrasound in random order on the same day by two different examiners. The same type of ultrasound equipment was used but with specific probes.


Results


We performed 1984 dual ultrasound examinations. In 121 BI-RADS 3 lesions, a breast biopsy was performed and the histology of two (1.7%) BI-RADS 3 lesions turned out to be malignant. The specificity for m-US was 95.0%, and 96.6% for r-US. One (0.8%) benign lesion was missed by m-US, whereas r-US missed 2 (1.7%) benign lesions. Each missed lesion was identified by the other scanning method. The mean maximal lesion diameter (ICC 0.82), the mean lesion volume (ICC 0.87), the clock-face localization (κ 0.82) and the mean distance to the skin (ICC 0.77) show excellent, and the mean distance from the lesion to the mammilla (ICC 0.65) good agreement between m-US and r-US. The agreement between m-US and r-US in regard to sonomorphologic criteria ranged from excellent to poor. In 71.9% the lesion was classified as BI-RADS 3 by m-US as well as r-US. The examination time for r-US was significantly shorter than for m-US.


Conclusion


For BI-RADS 3 breast lesions, radial breast ultrasound is an alternative to meander-like ultrasound since the diagnostic accuracy of the two scanning methods is comparable. Notably, patients benefit from a significantly shorter examination time.

Keywords: Agreement, BI-RADS 3, Diagnostic accuracy, Ductosonography, Examination time, Radial breast ultrasound

Article Details

How to Cite
ZANETTI-DÄLLENBACH, Rosanna et al. Radial and meander-like Breast Ultrasound demonstrate similar diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility for BI-RADS 3 Lesions. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 5, may 2021. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2416>. Date accessed: 26 dec. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v9i5.2416.
ABNT APA BibTeX CBE EndNote - EndNote format (Macintosh & Windows) MLA ProCite - RIS format (Macintosh & Windows) RefWorks Reference Manager - RIS format (Windows only) Turabian
Issue
Vol 9 No 5 (2021): Vol.9 Issue 5, May, 2021
Section
Research Articles

The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.

 

References

1. Mendelson EB-V, M.; Berg, W.A.; et al. ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound in: ACR BI-RADS Atlas®, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed2013.
2. Kim SJ, Ko EY, Shin JH, Kang SS, Mun SH, Han BK, et al. Application of sonographic BI-RADS to synchronous breast nodules detected in patients with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(3):653-8.
3. Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Berg WA. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial. Radiology. 2013;269(3):701-12.
4. Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Lorusso AP, Cohen MA, Bovbjerg VE. Short-term follow-up of palpable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1723-30.
5. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248(3):773-81.
6. Cho N, Lim J, Moon WK. Usefulness of ultrasound elastography in reducing the number of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3 lesions on ultrasonography. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(2):98-104.
7. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59-69.
8. Kim WH, Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Yi A, Koo HR, et al. Intraductal mass on breast ultrasound: final outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(4):932-7.
9. Ballesio L, Maggi C, Savelli S, Angeletti M, Rabuffi P, Manganaro L, et al. Adjunctive diagnostic value of ultrasonography evaluation in patients with suspected ductal breast disease. Radiol Med. 2007;112(3):354-65.
10. Rissanen T, Reinikainen H, Apaja-Sarkkinen M. Breast sonography in localizing the cause of nipple discharge: comparison with galactography in 52 patients. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(8):1031-9.
11. Kang DK, Jeon GS, Yim H, Jung YS. Diagnosis of the intraductal component of invasive breast cancer: assessment with mammography and sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(11):1587-600.
12. Rosensweig R, Foy PM, Cole-Beuglet C, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB. Radial scanning of the breast: an alternative to the standard ultrasound technique. J Clin Ultrasound. 1982;10(4):199-201.
13. Jaggi-Wickes C, Brasier-Lutz P, Schaedelin S, Burian R, Schoenenberger CA, Zanetti-Dallenbach R. Comparison of radial and meander-like breast ultrasound with respect to diagnostic accuracy and examination time. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(6):1533-41.
14. Stavros TH. Breast Ultasound. Philadelphia, PA 19106 USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. 1015 p.
15. Madjar H, Rickard M, Jellins J, Otto R. IBUS guidelines for the ultrasonic examination of the breast. IBUS International Faculty. International Breast Ultrasound School. Eur J Ultrasound. 1999;9(1):99-102.
16. Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology. 2013;268(3):642-59.
17. Wojcinski S, Cassel M, Farrokh A, Soliman AA, Hille U, Schmidt W, et al. Variations in the Elasticity of Breast Tissue During the Menstrual Cycle Determined by Real-time Sonoelastography. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(1):63-72.
18. Ebner L, Bonel HM, Huber A, Ross S, Christe A. Diagnostic Performance and Additional Value of Elastosonography in Focal Breast Lesions: Statistical Correlation between Size-Dependant Strain Index Measurements, Multimodality-BI-RADS Score, and Histopathology in a Clinical Routine Setting. ISRN Radiol. 2014;2014:396368.
19. Gheonea IA, Donoiu L, Camen D, Popescu FC, Bondari S. Sonoelastography of breast lesions: a prospective study of 215 cases with histopathological correlation. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2011;52(4):1209-14.
20. Gheonea IA, Stoica Z, Bondari S. Differential diagnosis of breast lesions using ultrasound elastography. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2011;21(4):301-5.
21. Mendelson EB, J.; Berg, W.; Merritt, C.; Rubin, E. ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound in: ACR BI-RADS Atlas®, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 4th ed2003.
22. Blaker H. Confidence curves and improved exact confidence intervals for discrete distributions. The Canadian Journal of Statistics. 2000;28(4):783-98.
23. Zhou X-HO, N. A.; McClish, D. K. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. 2nd ed: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74.
25. Streiner D.L. NGR. Health Measurement Scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed: Oxford University Press; 2008. 452 p.
26. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. Psychological Assessment. 1994;6(4):284-90.
27. Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A, Watermann D, Frenz JP, Bader W, et al. [BI-RADS-analogue DEGUM criteria for findings in breast ultrasound--consensus of the DEGUM Committee on Breast Ultrasound]. Ultraschall Med. 2006;27(4):374-9.
28. Kim EK, Ko KH, Oh KK, Kwak JY, You JK, Kim MJ, et al. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(5):1209-15.
29. Ackermann S, Schoenenberger CA, Zanetti-Dallenbach R. Clinical Data as an Adjunct to Ultrasound Reduces the False-Negative Malignancy Rate in BI-RADS 3 Breast Lesions. Ultrasound Int Open. 2016;2(3):E83-9.
30. Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):1160-6.
31. Wang D, Zhu K, Tian J, Li Z, Du G, Guo Q, et al. Clinicopathological and Ultrasonic Features of Triple-Negative Breast Cancers: A Comparison with Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2-Negative Breast Cancers. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(5):1124-32.
32. Zeng Z, Hou CJ, Hu QH, Liu Y, Wang C, Wei R, et al. Mammography and ultrasound effective features in differentiating basal-like and normal-like subtypes of triple negative breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8(45):79670-9.
33. Boisserie-Lacroix M, Mac Grogan G, Debled M, Ferron S, Asad-Syed M, Brouste V, et al. Radiological features of triple-negative breast cancers (73 cases). Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93(3):183-90.
34. Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, Franceschini G, Mule A, Bonomo L. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(5):649-59; quiz 61.
35. Patterson SK, Neal CH, Jeffries DO, Joe A, Klein K, Bailey J, et al. Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147(2):311-6.
36. Hille H, Vetter M, Hackeloer BJ. The accuracy of BI-RADS classification of breast ultrasound as a first-line imaging method. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(2):160-3.
37. Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG, Choi JJ, Lee JH, Song BJ, et al. Radiologists' performance for detecting lesions and the interobserver variability of automated whole breast ultrasound. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(2):154-63.