Advertisement

Automatic Breast Ultrasound Scanning

  • Dominique Amy
Chapter

Abstract

From the experience acquired on the six automatic breast ultrasound machines presented by the manufacturers, we show the advantages and limitations of this technique in this brief chapter.

In the future of automatic breast scanners expected to be growing, we present some aspects of the ideal equipment which some technicians are already beginning to develop.

This equipment must involve the notion of an ultrasound lobar approach of the breast which is the only one to allow a standardization of the method, to lay out strict examination protocols and define diagnostic criteria already analysed in previous chapters of this book.

Keywords

Automated breast scanner Lobar analysis Radial technique Dense breast 

References

  1. 1.
    Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U, Wiskirchen J, Gyapong S, Soliman AA, Degenhardt F, Hillemanns P. 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;3:337–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giger ML, Inciardi MF, Edwards A, Papaioannou J, Drukker K, Jiang Y, Brem R, Brown JB. Automated breast ultrasound in breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts: reader study of mammography-negative and mammography-positive cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:1341–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED. Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:djv367. PMID: 26712110 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brem R, Tabar L, Duffy S, Inciardi M, Guingrich J, Hashimoto B, Lander M, Lapidus R, Petreson M, Rapelyea J, Roux S, Schilling K, Shah B, Torrente J, Wynn R, Miller D. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue : the Somolnsight study. Radiology. 2015;274(3):663–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilczek B, Wilczek Henryk E, Leifland K, Rasouliyan L. Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1554–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duric N, Boyd N, Littrup P, Sak M, Myc L, Li C, West E, Minkin S, Martin L, Yaffe M, Schmidt S, Faiz M, Shen J, Melnichouk O, Li Q, Albrecht T. Breast density measurements with ultrasound tomography: a comparison with film and digital mammography. Med Phys. 2013;40:013501. PMID: 23298122 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen JH, Lee YW, Chan SW, et al. Breast density analysis with automated whole breast ultrasound: comparison with 3D magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42:1211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen JH, Chan S, Lu NH, et al. Opportunistic breast density assessment in women receiving low dose chest computed tomography screening. Acad Radiol. 2016;23:1154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheel JR, Lee JM, Sprague BL, Lee CI, Lehman CD. Screening ultrasound ’ as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:9–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moon WK, Shen Y-W, Huang CS, Chiang LR, Chang RF. Computer-aided diagnosis for the classification of breast masses in automated whole breast ultrasound images. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37:539–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, Park JH, Lee KE, Kim JH. Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis : interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:474–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shin H, Kim HH, Cha JH. Current status of automated breast ultrasonography. Ultrasonography. 2015;34:165–72. PMID: 25971900 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golatta M, Baggs C, Schweitzer-Martin M, Domschke C, Schott S, Harcos A, Scharf A, Junkermann H, Ranch G, Rom J, Sohn C, Heil J. Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291:889–95. PMID: 25311201 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Zelst JC, Platel B, Karssemeijer N, Mann RM. Multiplanar reconstructions of 3d automated breast ultrasound improve lesion differentiation by radiologists. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:1489–96. PMID: 26345538 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Zelst JC, Platel B, Karssemeijer N, Mann RM. Multiplanar reconstructions of 3d automated breast ultrasound improve lesion differentiation by radiologists. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:1489–96. (PMID: 26345538)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre du seinAix-en-ProvenceFrance

Personalised recommendations