The diagnosis value of coronal edge features in ABVS for solid breast tumors

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2021.04.015

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the value of margin features in the coronal plane of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) for the diagnosis of solid breast tumors in women.

Methods

The preoperative data on handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and ABVS of 206 female breast mass patients with 230 nodes were retrospectively analyzed. HHUS focused on the margins, morphology, growth orientation, calcification, internal echogenic features, posterior echogenic features, color blood flow and Doppler spectrum features of the mass. SPSS 20.0 software was used for statistical analysis, ±s used for the mean of quantitative data, paired chi-square test was used for comparison of sensitivity and specificity. Kappa test was used for consistency testing.

Results

The sensitivities of the malignant marginal features of HHUS, all features of HHUS, the malignant marginal features of ABVS coronal plane, and the malignant marginal features of ABVS combined with all features of HHUS for the diagnosis of solid breast tumors were 62.40%, 71.40%, 72.93%, and 88.72%, respectively, the specificities were 80.41%, 76.29%, 77.32%, and 75.26%, respectively. The sensitivity of the malignant marginal features of the ABVS coronal plane was higher than that of the HHUS, the difference had statistics significance (P < 0.001), the Kappa was 0.762 in the consistency test. The sensitivity of the malignant marginal features of the ABVS coronal plane combined with all features of the HHUS was higher than that of the HHUS alone in the diagnosis of solid breast tumors, the difference had statistics significance (P = 0.001), the Kappa was 0.778 in the consistency test.

Conclusions

ABVS coronal plane can provide more marginal features of breast tumors. The sensitivity of diagnosing malignant tumors of female breast will be improved when combined with HHUS.

Key words: Breast neoplasms, Ultrasonic diagnosis, ABVS

Ming Li, Xingyou Zan, Na Li, Yali Du, Xinxian Lu, Qiaoying Zhu, Fengsheng Zhou. The diagnosis value of coronal edge features in ABVS for solid breast tumors[J]. Chinese Journal of Interventional Radiology(Electronic Edition), 2021, 09(04): 429-433.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhjrfsxdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2021.04.015

https://zhjrfsxdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2021/V09/I04/429

Figures/Tables 4

References 17

[1]	Kaplan SS. Automated whole breast ultrasound[J]. Radiol Clin North Am, 2014, 52(3): 539-546.
[2]	Chen L, Chen Y, Diao XH, et al. Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2013, 39(10): 1735-1742.
[3]	何其佳，赵玉珍，阳练, 等. 乳腺超声自动容积成像技术与普通超声对乳腺肿物的诊断价值比较[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2016, 25(7): 597-602.
[4]	Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA, et al. (2013) ACR BI-RADS ultrasound. ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th Edition[S]. American College of Radiology, 2013:128-130.
[5]	Schmachtenberh C, Fischer T, Hamm B, et al. Diagnostic performace of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasonography with breast MRI as the gold standard[J]. Acad Radiol, 2017, 24(8): 954-961.
[6]	卢瑞刚，于泽兴，梁晓宁,等. ABVS在常规超声乳腺不典型癌中的应用价值[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2016, 32(7): 590-593.
[7]	Choi EJ, Choi H, Park EH, et al. Evaluation of an automated breast volume scanner according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS for breast ultrasound compared with hand-held ultrasound[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2018, 99(12): 138-145.
[8]	Elverici E, Barça AN, Aktaş H, et al. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation[J]. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2015, 21(3): 189-194.
[9]	Zheng FY, Yan LX, Huang BJ, et al. Comparison of retraction phenomenon and BI-RADS-US descriptors in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses using an automated breast volume scanner[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2015, 84(11): 2123-2129.
[10]	詹维伟，周建桥. 乳腺超声影像报告与数据系统解读[M].北京: 北京人民卫生出版社, 2015: 35-95.
[11]	严丽霞，黄备建，刘利民, 等. 乳腺病灶声像图冠状面征象的应用价值[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2014, 30(11): 980-983.
[12]	王惠，靳凤梅，孙媛媛, 等. 常规超声及ABVS对乳腺结节病理结果对照研究[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2017, 33(10): 888-892.
[13]	邵玉红，张惠，王彬, 等. 常规超声联合全自动乳腺容积扫描技术对乳腺肿块BI-RADS分类[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2015, 31(2): 258-262.
[14]	刘迎春，陈林，陈悦，等. 乳腺超声容积成像的历史与研究现状[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2018, 15(4): 246-250.
[15]	Zhang X, Chen J, Zhou Y, et al. Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound:a meta-analysis[J]. Gland Surg, 2019, 8(6): 698-711.
[16]	Xiao YM, Zhou QC, Chen ZH. Automated breast volumescanning versus conventional ultrasound in breast cancer screening[J]. Acad Radiol, 2015, 22(3): 387-399.
[17]	包凌云，谭艳娟，朱罗茜, 等. 自动乳腺全容积成像在乳腺导管原位癌诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2015, 11(1): 61-67.

病理结果		例数
乳腺良性肿瘤		97
	纤维腺瘤	54
	腺病	24
	肉芽肿性炎	7
	导管内乳头状瘤	7
	导管内乳头状瘤病	3
	良性叶状肿瘤	1
	硬化性腺病	1
乳腺恶性肿瘤		133
	浸润性导管癌	98
	导管原位癌	17
	浸润性小叶癌	4
	黏液癌	4
	实性乳头状癌	3
	导管内乳头状癌	2
	浸润性大汗腺癌	2
	包裹性乳头状癌	1
	髓样癌	1
	化生性癌	1

病理结果		例数
乳腺良性肿瘤		97
	纤维腺瘤	54
	腺病	24
	肉芽肿性炎	7
	导管内乳头状瘤	7
	导管内乳头状瘤病	3
	良性叶状肿瘤	1
	硬化性腺病	1
乳腺恶性肿瘤		133
	浸润性导管癌	98
	导管原位癌	17
	浸润性小叶癌	4
	黏液癌	4
	实性乳头状癌	3
	导管内乳头状癌	2
	浸润性大汗腺癌	2
	包裹性乳头状癌	1
	髓样癌	1
	化生性癌	1

检查方法	病理诊断（例）	超声诊断（例）		敏感性（%）	敏感性检验		特异性（%）	特异性检验
检查方法	病理诊断（例）	良性	恶性	敏感性（%）	McNemar检验	Kappa检验	特异性（%）	McNemar检验	Kappa检验
HHUS的边缘恶性特征	良性（97）	78	19
	恶性（133）	50	83	62.40			80.41
单纯HHUS的所有恶性特征	良性（97）	74	23
	恶性（133）	38	95	71.40			76.29
ABVS的边缘恶性特征	良性（97）	75	22	72.93	P < 0.001^a	0.762^a	77.32	P = 0.250^a	0.907^a
	恶性（133）	36	97
ABVS的边缘恶性特征联合HHUS的所有恶性特征	良性（97）	73	24
ABVS的边缘恶性特征联合HHUS的所有恶性特征	恶性（133）	15	118	88.72	P = 0.001^b	0.778^b	75.26	P = 1.000^b	0.972^b

检查方法	病理诊断（例）	超声诊断（例）		敏感性（%）	敏感性检验		特异性（%）	特异性检验
检查方法	病理诊断（例）	良性	恶性	敏感性（%）	McNemar检验	Kappa检验	特异性（%）	McNemar检验	Kappa检验
HHUS的边缘恶性特征	良性（97）	78	19
	恶性（133）	50	83	62.40			80.41
单纯HHUS的所有恶性特征	良性（97）	74	23
	恶性（133）	38	95	71.40			76.29
ABVS的边缘恶性特征	良性（97）	75	22	72.93	P < 0.001^a	0.762^a	77.32	P = 0.250^a	0.907^a
	恶性（133）	36	97
ABVS的边缘恶性特征联合HHUS的所有恶性特征	良性（97）	73	24
ABVS的边缘恶性特征联合HHUS的所有恶性特征	恶性（133）	15	118	88.72	P = 0.001^b	0.778^b	75.26	P = 1.000^b	0.972^b

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export