Ibraheem Shahad A, Mahmud Rozi, Mohamad Saini Suraini, Abu Hassan Hasyma, Keiteb Aysar Sabah
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor 43400, Malaysia.
Center of Diagnostic Nuclear Imaging, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor 43400, Malaysia.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Mar 11;13(6):1065. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13061065.
(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 = 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; < 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.
(1) 目的:根据BI-RADS第五版分类,评估原型手持式超声与自动乳腺超声相比,在有阳性肿块的女性中对病变的诊断性能。(2) 方法:纳入162名同时接受了原型手持式超声和自动乳腺超声检查的参与者的1004个病变。两名放射科医生和一名超声检查技师根据BI-RADS第五版独立评估每个病变的超声特征。计算每个BI-RADS描述符和最终评估类别的kappa系数(κ)。进行交叉表分析以查看自动乳腺超声(ABUS)和原型手持式超声(HHUS)结果之间是否存在差异。使用McNamar检验评估并比较特异性和敏感性。(3) 结果:在162名受访者的324个乳房中,ABUS和原型HHUS观察者发现的乳腺病变数量相同。平均病变大小无显著差异,并测得最大平均长度尺寸为0.48±0.33厘米。ABUS和原型HHUS观察者在病变形状、方向、边缘、回声模式、后方声学特征和钙化的评估上达成了良好到极佳的一致性(κ = 0.70 - 1.0)。除病变方向(= 0.00)外,ABUS和原型HHUS在病变评估方面绝对没有显著差异。ABUS和原型HHUS观察者之间的诊断准确性(99.8%和97.7 - 98.9%)、敏感性(99.5%和98.0 - 99.0%)、特异性(99.8%和99.6 - 99.8%)、阳性预测值(98.1%和90.3 - 96.2%)、阴性预测值(90.0%和84.4 - 88.7%)以及曲线下面积(0.98和0.83 - 0.92;P < 0.05)均无显著差异。(4) 结论:根据BI-RADS第五版,在观察者间变异性和诊断性能方面,自动乳腺超声与原型手持式超声在统计学上无显著差异。