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.
Keywords: Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS); breast cancer; hand-held ultrasound (HHUS); meta-analysis.
2019 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Evaluation of an automated breast volume scanner according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS for breast ultrasound compared with hand-held ultrasound.Eur J Radiol. 2018 Feb;99:138-145. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.002. Epub 2018 Jan 4. Eur J Radiol. 2018. PMID: 29362145
Automatic Breast Volume Scanner versus Handheld Ultrasound in Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019 Aug;45(8):1874-1881. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.04.028. Epub 2019 May 24. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019. PMID: 31130410
Comparison of automated breast volume scanning and hand- held ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer: an analysis of 5,566 patient evaluations.Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(21):9101-5. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.21.9101. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014. PMID: 25422185
Diagnostic performance of the automated breast volume scanner: a systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.Eur Radiol. 2015 Dec;25(12):3638-47. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3759-3. Epub 2015 Apr 28. Eur Radiol. 2015. PMID: 25916389 Review.
Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Jan. Report No.: 14-05201-EF-3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). 2016. PMID: 26866210 Free Books & Documents. Review.