Abstract
Aim
To explore the feasibility of the application of the Automated Breast Volume Scanner
(ABVS) ACUSON S2000 in the diagnosis of soft tissue tumors.
Methods
The data of handheld ultrasound (HHUS) scans and ABVS volume three-dimensional (3D)
reconstruction were collected from 66 patients with soft tissue tumors. The diagnosis
rates for the two methods were compared. Additionally, the sonographic features of
the lesions on ABVS imaging were evaluated. The data of the sonographic “hyperechoic
rim sign” and “heterogeneous texture sign” were analyzed for the differential diagnosis.
Results
Automatic 3D reconstruction and high-resolution images from the coronal and sagittal
planes were obtained using the ABVS. Although the ABVS is similar to HHUS in terms
of sensitivity (81.8% vs. 77.3%, respectively), specificity (93.2% vs. 88.6%, respectively),
and accuracy (89.4% vs. 84.8%, respectively), the success rates for full view of the
lesion and detection rates of multiple lesions are significantly improved by the ABVS.
Furthermore, the “hyperechoic rim sign” can be regarded as a specific diagnostic factor
for benign tumors, with a diagnostic specificity and a positive predictive value of
86.4% and 91.4%, respectively. Additionally, the “heterogeneous texture” appeared
commonly in malignant tumors, with a diagnostic sensitivity and a negative predictive
value of 81.8% and 87.5%, respectively.
Conclusion
Compared with conventional two-dimensional imaging, automatic 3D reconstruction and
high-resolution images from three vertical planes can be displayed by the ABVS, and
the global anatomy and surrounding tissue of the lesions can be clearly presented.
Thus, ABVS imaging may help to differentiate between benign and malignant soft tissue
tumors.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Optimal scanning technique to cover the whole breast using an automated breast volume scanner.Jpn J Radiol. 2010; 28: 325-328
- Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts.Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 734-742
- Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): a new approach for breast imaging.Radiologe. 2010; 50: 973-981
- Radiologists' performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS).Eur J Radiol. 2011; 78: 99-103
- The Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases.Int J Womens Health. 2011; 3: 337-346
- Interobserver agreement for sonograms of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner.Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81: 2179-2218
- Interobserver reliability of automated breast volume interpretation and agreement of ABVS findings with ultrasound (HHUS), mammography and pathology.Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82: e332-e336
- Analysis of normal breast tissue and of solid breast masses using three-dimensional ultrasound mammography.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 14: 114-124
- Comparative study of automated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses.Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013; 39: 1735-1742
- Sonographic target sign and rim enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging in metastatic melanoma to the breast.Australas Radiol. 2006; 50: 237-240
- High mechanical index post-contrast ultrasonography improves tissue structural display of hepatocellular carcinoma.Chin Med J (Engl). 2005; 118: 2046-2051
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 06, 2015
Accepted:
January 8,
2015
Received in revised form:
November 28,
2014
Received:
June 4,
2014
Identification
Copyright
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
