Application of automated breast volume scanner and mammography in differentiation of small breast lesions with BI-RADS-US 4.
10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2018.10.014
- Author:
Huan WEN
1
;
Jidong XIAO
1
;
Yuanquan ZHOU
1
;
Fang HE
1
;
Yuyao MAO
1
Author Information
1. Department of Ultrasound, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410013, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Breast;
diagnostic imaging;
Breast Neoplasms;
diagnostic imaging;
Female;
Humans;
Mammography;
Reproducibility of Results;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Ultrasonography, Mammary
- From:
Journal of Central South University(Medical Sciences)
2018;43(10):1131-1136
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
To evaluate the value of automatic breast volume scanner (ABVS) and mammography (MG) in differential diagnosis for small breast lesions with breast imaging reporting and data system ultrasound (BI-RADS-US) 4.
Methods: ABVS and MG were performed for 103 patients with 109 breast lesions, which were classified as BI-RADS-US 4 by conventional ultrasound (US). Postoperative pathological diagnosis served as gold standard. The diagnostic efficacy for US, US combined with MG, US combined with ABVS and the combination of three methods were compared.
Results: The sensitivity of US, US combined with MG, US combined with ABVS and the combination of three methods were 85.5%, 86.8%, 94.7% and 96.0%, respectively. The specificity for them were 66.7%, 69.7%, 81.8% and 84.9%, respectively. The accuracy for them were 79.8%, 81.6%, 90.8% and 92.7%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for them were 0.76, 0.78, 0.88 and 0.90, respectively. The accuracy and AUC for US combined with ABVS in differential diagnosis of BI-RADS-US 4 small breast lesions were significantly higher than those of US and US combined with MG (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity among these 3 groups (P>0.05). No significant difference was found in sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC between US combined with ABVS and the combination of three methods (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Combination of US with ABVS can improve the diagnostic efficacy of conventional US in differential diagnosis for BI-RADS-US 4 small breast lesions, and it is superior to US combined with MG.
