Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound: a meta-analysis

被引:22
作者
Zhang, Xiaohui [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Juan [2 ,3 ]
Zhou, Yidong [1 ,2 ]
Mao, Feng [1 ,2 ]
Lin, Yan [1 ,2 ]
Shen, Songjie [1 ,2 ]
Sun, Qiang [1 ,2 ]
Ouyang, Zhaolian [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Dept Breast Surg, Beijing 100032, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Union Med Coll, Beijing 100032, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Med Lib, Inst Med Informat, Beijing 100020, Peoples R China
关键词
Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS); hand-held ultrasound (HHUS); breast cancer; meta-analysis; B-MODE ULTRASOUND; LESION DETECTION; CANCER; MAMMOGRAPHY; ABVS; PERFORMANCE; BENIGN; WOMEN; RADS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.21037/gs.2019.11.18
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The diagnostic performance of an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared with that of a hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) for breast cancer remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performances of the ABVS and HHUS for breast cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and SinoMed databases to identify eligible studies up until November 14, 2018. Studies comparing ABVS and HHUS for differentiating benign and malignant breast tumors were included. A meta-analysis was performed to generate pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters [sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and the Q* index] and detection rates for ABVS and HHUS. Results: Nine studies involving 1,376 patients and 1,527 lesions were included in the meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. The pooled sensitivity was 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-0.95] for ABVS and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.92) for HHUS, and the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) for ABVS and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for HHUS. The pooled DOR was 88.66 (95% CI, 51.44-152.78) for ABVS and 41.06 for HHUS (95% CI, 26.58-63.42). The AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.9496 for ABVS and 0.9143 for HHUS, and the Q* index was 0.8899 for ABVS and 0.8469 for HHUS. Meta-regression showed no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of ABVS and HHUS (P=0.0771). No publication bias was found. Thirteen published studies involving 1,047 pathologically confirmed malignant lesions were included to generate a pooled detection rate. The pooled detection rate was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00) for both ABVS and HHUS, for which a publication bias was found. Conclusions: ABVS can be used as an appropriate screening tool for breast cancer as well as HHUS in diagnostic accuracy and detection rate. Considering other advantages of ABVS including non-radioactivity, sensitivity to dense breast, three-dimensional reconstruction, time-saving and repeatability, it might be a promising screening tool for young or dense-breast women in the future.
引用
收藏
页码:698 / +
页数:16
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], CHIN J HLTH MANAGE
[2]  
[Anonymous], CHIN J WOM CHI HEAL
[3]  
[Anonymous], CHIN J GERONTOL
[4]  
[Anonymous], DIAGN INTERV IMAGING
[5]   Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density [J].
Assi, Valentina ;
Warwick, Jane ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Duffy, Stephen W. .
NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 9 (01) :33-40
[6]   Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Guo, Helen ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Sun, Limei ;
Stone, Jennifer ;
Fishell, Eve ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Hislop, Greg ;
Chiarelli, Anna ;
Minkin, Salomon ;
Yaffe, Martin J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) :227-236
[7]   Assessing Improvement in Detection of Breast Cancer with Three-dimensional Automated Breast US in Women with Dense Breast Tissue: The Somoinsight Study [J].
Brem, Rachel F. ;
Tabar, Laszlo ;
Duffy, Stephen W. ;
Inciardi, Marc F. ;
Guingrich, Jessica A. ;
Hashimoto, Beverly E. ;
Lander, Marla R. ;
Lapidus, Robert L. ;
Peterson, Mary Kay ;
Rapelyea, Jocelyn A. ;
Roux, Susan ;
Schilling, Kathy J. ;
Shah, Biren A. ;
Torrente, Jessica ;
Wynn, Ralph T. ;
Miller, Dave P. .
RADIOLOGY, 2015, 274 (03) :663-673
[8]   Screening Breast Ultrasound: Past, Present, and Future [J].
Brem, Rachel F. ;
Lenihan, Megan J. ;
Lieberman, Jennifer ;
Torrente, Jessica .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 204 (02) :234-240
[9]   A Review of Supplemental Screening Ultrasound for Breast Cancer: Certain Populations of Women with Dense Breast Tissue May Benefit [J].
Burkett, Brian J. ;
Hanemann, Cynthia W. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2016, 23 (12) :1604-1609
[10]   COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AUTOMATED BREAST 3-D ULTRASOUND AND HANDHELD B-MODE ULTRASOUND FOR DIFFERENTIATION OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT BREAST MASSES [J].
Chen, Lin ;
Chen, Yue ;
Diao, Xue-Hong ;
Fang, Liang ;
Pang, Yun ;
Cheng, Ai-Qun ;
Li, Wei-Ping ;
Wang, Yi .
ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2013, 39 (10) :1735-1742