Factors that influence ultrasound evaluation of breast tumor size

Dependability of Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) in Assessing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Category and Size of Malignant Breast Lesions Compared with Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) and Mammography (MG)

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the dependability of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG) on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category and size assessment of malignant breast lesions.

Patients and Methods

A total of 344 confirmed malignant lesions were recruited. All participants underwent MG, HHUS, and ABUS examinations. Agreements on the BI-RADS category were evaluated. Lesion size assessed using the three methods was compared with the size of the pathological result as the control. Regarding the four major molecular subtypes, correlation coefficients between size on imaging and pathology were also evaluated.

Results

The agreement between ABUS and HHUS on the BI-RADS category was 86.63% (kappa = 0.77), whereas it was 32.22% (kappa = 0.10) between ABUS and MG. Imaging lesion size compared to pathologic lesion size was assessed correctly in 36.92%/52.91% (ABUS), 33.14%/48.84% (HHUS) and 33.44%/43.87% (MG), with the threshold of 3 mm/5 mm, respectively. The correlation coefficient of size of ABUS-Pathology (0.75, Spearman) was statistically higher than that of the MG-Pathology (0.58, Spearman) with P < 0.01, but not different from that of the HHUS-Pathology (0.74, Spearman) with P > 0.05. The correlation coefficient of ABUS-Pathology was statistically higher than that of MG-Pathology in the triple-negative subtype, luminal B subtype, and luminal A subtype (P<0.01).

Conclusion

The agreement between ABUS and HHUS in the BI-RADS category was good, whereas that between ABUS and MG was poor. ABUS and HHUS allowed a more accurate assessment of malignant tumor size compared to MG.

Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in the early assessment of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an emerging role to monitoring tumor response?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the role of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in the early detection of patients with locally advanced breast cancer who are more likely to reach a complete pathological response (pCR) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS

A single-institution prospective study was performed in patients with histological diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, eligible for NAC, and who were to undergo surgery in our Hospital. Imaging examinations with ABVS, HHUS and CE-MRI were performed at diagnosis (basal time) and after 3 months of chemotherapy (middle time). The tumor size of each lesion was measured at the basal and middle times, and the dimensional variation was reported. Based on this, patients were divided dichotomously by the median value, obtaining "good responders" (goodR) versus "poor responders" (poorR). The results were correlated with the histological assessment (pCR versus No-pCR) with the use of the intergroup comparison of categorical data (Fisher's exact test).

RESULT

A total of 21 patients were included; 5 obtained a pCR (23%). Both the ABVS and the CE-MRI found all 5 patients with pCR in the group of goodR (10 patients), while none of the poorR (11 patients) obtained a pCR [correlation was statistically significant (p 0.01)]. In the HHUS, goodR (10 patients) 1 obtained a pCR while in the poorR (11 patients) 4 obtained a pCR [correlation not statistically significant (p 0.31)].

CONCLUSIONS

ABVS could be a useful tool, appearing to be more reliable than HHUS, and as accurate as CE-MRI, in early detection of patients who could reach a pCR after NAC.