Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category
<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 include...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/212 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832588676222156800 |
|---|---|
| author | Han Song Mun Eun Young Ko Boo-Kyung Han Eun Sook Ko Ji Soo Choi Haejung Kim Myoung Kyoung Kim Jieun Kim |
| author_facet | Han Song Mun Eun Young Ko Boo-Kyung Han Eun Sook Ko Ji Soo Choi Haejung Kim Myoung Kyoung Kim Jieun Kim |
| author_sort | Han Song Mun |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1e9be3cde1f84c87a14d13b582b5df1c |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj-art-1e9be3cde1f84c87a14d13b582b5df1c2025-01-24T13:29:07ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182025-01-0115221210.3390/diagnostics15020212Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS CategoryHan Song Mun0Eun Young Ko1Boo-Kyung Han2Eun Sook Ko3Ji Soo Choi4Haejung Kim5Myoung Kyoung Kim6Jieun Kim7Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Radiology, Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Radiology, Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Radiology, Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Radiology, Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Radiology, Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Radiology, Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Radiology, Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan 48108, Republic of Korea<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.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/212breast cancercancer screeningultrasoundautomated breast ultrasound |
| spellingShingle | Han Song Mun Eun Young Ko Boo-Kyung Han Eun Sook Ko Ji Soo Choi Haejung Kim Myoung Kyoung Kim Jieun Kim Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category Diagnostics breast cancer cancer screening ultrasound automated breast ultrasound |
| title | Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category |
| title_full | Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category |
| title_short | Comparative Analysis of Automated and Handheld Breast Ultrasound Findings for Small (≤1 cm) Breast Cancers Based on BI-RADS Category |
| title_sort | comparative analysis of automated and handheld breast ultrasound findings for small ≤1 cm breast cancers based on bi rads category |
| topic | breast cancer cancer screening ultrasound automated breast ultrasound |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/212 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hansongmun comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory AT eunyoungko comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory AT bookyunghan comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory AT eunsookko comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory AT jisoochoi comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory AT haejungkim comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory AT myoungkyoungkim comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory AT jieunkim comparativeanalysisofautomatedandhandheldbreastultrasoundfindingsforsmall1cmbreastcancersbasedonbiradscategory |