Diagnostic Performance of Prototype Handheld Ultrasound According to the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS for Breast Ultrasound Compared with Automated Breast Ultrasound among Females with Positive Lumps
-
Published:2023-03-11
Issue:6
Volume:13
Page:1065
-
ISSN:2075-4418
-
Container-title:Diagnostics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Diagnostics
Author:
Ibraheem Shahad A.1, Mahmud Rozi12, Mohamad Saini Suraini12, Abu Hassan Hasyma1ORCID, Keiteb Aysar Sabah3
Affiliation:
1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor 43400, Malaysia 2. Center of Diagnostic Nuclear Imaging, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor 43400, Malaysia 3. Department of Radiological Techniques, College of Health and Medical Technologies, Baghdad 10047, Iraq
Abstract
(1) Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of prototype handheld ultrasound compared to automated breast ultrasound, according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS categorization, among females with positive lumps. (2) Methods: A total of 1004 lesions in 162 participants who underwent both prototype handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound were included. Two radiologists and a sonographer independently evaluated the sonographic features of each lesion according to the fifth BI-RADS edition. The kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated for each BI-RADS descriptor and final assessment category. The cross-tabulation was performed to see whether there were differences between the ABUS and prototype HHUS results. Specificity and sensitivity were evaluated and compared using the McNamar test. (3) Results: ABUS and prototype HHUS observers found the same number of breast lesions in the 324 breasts of the 162 respondents. There was no significant difference in the mean lesion size, with a maximum mean length dimension of 0.48 ± 0.33 cm. The assessment of the lesion’s shape, orientation, margin, echo pattern, posterior acoustic features, and calcification was obtained with good to excellent agreements between ABUS and prototype HHUS observers (κ = 0.70–1.0). There was absolutely no significant difference between ABUS and prototype HHUS in assessment of lesion except for lesion orientation p = 0.00. Diagnostic accuracy (99.8% and 97.7–98.9%), sensitivity (99.5% and 98.0–99.0%), specificity (99.8% and 99.6–99.8%), positive predictive value (98.1% and 90.3–96.2%), negative predictive value (90.0% and 84.4–88.7%), and areas under the curve (0.98 and 0.83–0.92; p < 0.05) were not significantly different between ABUS and prototype HHUS observers. (4) Conclusion: According to the fifth BI-RADS edition, automated breast ultrasound is not statistically significantly different from prototype handheld ultrasound with regard to interobserver variability and diagnostic performance.
Funder
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Subject
Clinical Biochemistry
Reference39 articles.
1. Azizah, A.M., Hashimah, B., Nirmal, K., Siti Zubaidah, A.R., Puteri, N.A., Nabihah, A., Sukumaran, R., Balqis, B., Nadia, S.M.R., and Sharifah, S.S.S. (2019). Malaysian National Cancer Registry Report 2012–2016. Malaysia Cancer Statistics, Data and Figure, National Cancer Institute, Ministry of Health. 2. Characteristics and prognosis of Japanese female breast cancer patients: The BioBank Japan project;Nakamura;J. Epidemiol.,2017 3. Chronological Improvement in Survival of Patients with Breast Cancer: A Large-Scale, Single-Center Study;Lee;J. Breast Cancer,2018 4. National Registry of Diseases Office (2017). Singapore Cancer Registry Annual Registry Report 2015, National Registry of Diseases Office. 5. The Role of Breast Ultrasound in Early Cancer Detection;Pan;J. Med. Ultrasound,2016
|
|