Mun Han Song, Ko Eun Young, Han Boo-Kyung, Ko Eun Sook, Choi Ji Soo, Kim Haejung, Kim Myoung Kyoung, Kim Jieun
Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.
Department of Radiology, Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jan 17;15(2):212. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15020212.
: This study aimed to compare ultrasound (US) findings between automated and handheld breast ultrasound (ABUS and HHUS, respectively) in small breast cancers, based on the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category. : We included 51 women (mean age: 52 years; range: 39-66 years) with breast cancer (invasive or DCIS), all of whom underwent both ABUS and HHUS. Patients with tumors measuring ≤1 cm on either modality were enrolled. Two breast radiologists retrospectively evaluated multiple imaging features, including shape, orientation, margin, echo pattern, and posterior characteristics and assigned BI-RADS categories. Lesion sizes were compared between US and pathological findings. Statistical analyses were performed using Bowker's test of symmetry, a paired -test, and a cumulative link mixed model. : ABUS assigned lower BI-RADS categories than HHUS while still maintaining malignancy suspicion in categories 4A or higher (54.8% consistent with HHUS; 37.3% downcategorized in ABUS, = 0.005). While ABUS demonstrated less aggressive margins in some cases (61.3% consistent with HHUS; 25.8% showing fewer suspicious margins in ABUS), this difference was not statistically significant ( = 0.221). Similarly, ABUS exhibited slightly greater height-width ratios compared to HHUS (median, interquartile range: 0.98, 0.7-1.12 vs. 0.86, 0.74-1.10, = 0.166). No significant differences were observed in other US findings or tumor sizes between the two modalities (all > 0.05). : Small breast cancers exhibited suspicious US features on both ABUS and HHUS, yet they were assigned lower BI-RADS assessment categories on ABUS compared to HHUS. Therefore, when conducting breast cancer screening with ABUS, it is important to remain attentive to even subtle suspicious findings, and active consideration for biopsy may be warranted.
本研究旨在基于乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)分类,比较自动乳腺超声(ABUS)和手持式乳腺超声(HHUS)在小乳腺癌中的超声表现。我们纳入了51例患有乳腺癌(浸润性或导管原位癌)的女性(平均年龄:52岁;范围:39 - 66岁),所有患者均接受了ABUS和HHUS检查。纳入两种检查方式下肿瘤直径≤1 cm的患者。两位乳腺放射科医生回顾性评估了多种影像特征,包括形态、方位、边缘、回声模式和后方特征,并指定BI-RADS分类。比较了超声检查结果与病理结果之间的病变大小。使用Bowker对称检验、配对t检验和累积链接混合模型进行统计分析。ABUS指定的BI-RADS分类低于HHUS,同时在4A类或更高类别中仍保持恶性怀疑(54.8%与HHUS一致;37.3%在ABUS中被降级分类,P = 0.005)。虽然ABUS在某些情况下显示出侵袭性较小的边缘(61.3%与HHUS一致;25.8%在ABUS中显示较少可疑边缘),但这种差异无统计学意义(P = 0.221)。同样,与HHUS相比,ABUS的高宽比略大(中位数,四分位间距:0.98,0.7 - 1.12对0.86,0.74 - 1.10,P = 0.166)。在两种检查方式的其他超声表现或肿瘤大小方面未观察到显著差异(所有P>0.05)。小乳腺癌在ABUS和HHUS上均表现出可疑的超声特征,但与HHUS相比,它们在ABUS上被指定的BI-RADS评估分类较低。因此,在使用ABUS进行乳腺癌筛查时,重要的是要留意即使是细微的可疑发现,可能有必要积极考虑活检。