Prospective Study Comparing Two Second-Look Ultrasound Techniques

Handheld Ultrasound and an Automated Breast Volume Scanner

Authors

  • Kim Yoonsoo MD,

    1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kang Bong Joo MD, PhD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
    • Address correspondence to Bong Joo Kang, MD, PhD, Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-701, Korea.

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kim Sung Hun MD,

    1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lee Eun Jae MD

    1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

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.

Ancillary