Capabilities of breast sonotomography (automated breast volume sonography) in the evaluation of the glandular structure of the breast in the context of its cancer risk

Objective: to study the capabilities of a procedure for sonotomography (STG) versus that of X-ray mammography (MG) in patients from different age groups who have different radiological types of the breast structure and to estimate the diagnostic   possibilities of the STG and X-ray MG procedures in detecting cancer in patients its the X-ray dense background.

Materail and methods. The investigation enrolled 143 patients aged 38 to 77 years who had undergone STG after primary X-ray MG. Particular emphasis was placed on a methodological approach to optimizing STG in patients from different age groups with a varying radiological type of the breast structure in different physiological periods. The international breast imaging and reporting data system was used to standardize detected breast masses.

Results. Out of the 143 patients, 102 persons, including 16 patients with verified breast cancer (BC), were found to have space-occupying lesions. During the  performed investigation, computed processing of 3D scans at the working station confirmed the entire quadrant-by-quadrant consentaneity of the glandular structure of the breast at STG and X-ray MG. There were a higher proportion of abnormal breast masses with the increased percentage ratio of glandular tissue in the breast. Emphasis was laid on the role of STG as an additional examination technique in patients from all age groups with the radiologically dense breast in order to detect cancer due to a high sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 96%.

Conclusion. The procedure of STG versus that of X-ray MS showed a high degree of compatibility of opinions as to the type of the breast structure in the patients. Due to the fact that standardprojection STG scans can be compared, during mammography the procedure of STG must hold a firm place in the examination algorithm of the breast in women with its X-ray dense structure.

1. Chissov V.I., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. (eds). Malignant lesions in Russian Federation (incidence and death rates). Moscow; 2012 (in Russian).

2. Rozhkova N.I. Radiology of the breast. Practical guide for doctors. Moscow: SpetsIzdat; 2014 (in Russian).

3. Boyd N.F., Guo H., Martin L.J. et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007; 356: 227–36.

4. Tozaki M., Isobe S., Yamaguchi M. et al. Optimal scanning technique to cover the whole breast using an automated breast volume scanner. Jpn J. Radiol. 2010; 28: 325–8.

5. Wojcinski S., Farrokh A., Hille U., Wiskirchen J., Gyapong S., Soliman A.A. et al. The automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases. Intern. J. Women's Health. 2011; 13: 337–46.

6. Shin H.J., Kim H.H., Cha J.H., Park J.H., Lee K.E., Kim J.H. Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011; 13 (3): 747–54. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5841.

7. Golatta M., Franz D., Harcos A., Junkermann H., Rauch G., Scharf A. et al. Interobserver reliability of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) interpretation and agreement of ABVS findings with hand held breast ultrasound (HHUS), mammography and pathology results. Eur. J. Radiol.2013; 13 (8): 332–6.

8. Kelly K.M., Dean J., Comulada W.S., Lee S.J. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur. Radiology. 2010; 20: 734–42.

9. Kelly K.M., Dean J., Lee S.J., Comulada W.S. Breast cancer detection: radiologists' performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound. Eur. Radiology. 2010; 20: 2557–64.

10. Zhang J., Lai X.J., Zhu Q.L., Wang H.Y., Jiang Y.X., Liu H. et al. Interobserver agreement for sonograms of breast lesions obtained by an automated breast volume scanner. Eur. J. Radiol. 2012; 13 (9): 2179–83.

11. Wenkel E., Heckmann M., Heinrich M. et al. Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification – a pilot study. Rofo. 2008; 180: 804–8.

12. Berg W.A., Blume J.D., Cormack J.B. et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299: 2151–63.

13. Yakobs O.E., Rozhkova N.I., Mazo M.L. Practical use of virtual sonography of the breast. Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii. 2014; 1: 23–32 (in Russian).

14. Gazhonova V.E., Bachurina E.M., Khlyustina E.M. Automated breast sonotomography (3D ABVS). Part 1. Integration of the USmethod in radiological standards of tomography. Poliklinika. 2014; 3: 42–8 (in Russian).

15. Boyd N.F. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J. Nat’l. Cancer Institute. 1995; 87 (9): 670–5.

16. Sak M., Duric N., Boyd N., Littrup P., Myc L. et al. Relationship between breast sound speed and mammographic percent density. Proc. SPIE 7968, Medical Imaging 2011: Ultrasonic Imaging, Tomography, and Therapy, 79680N (March 25, 2011); DOI:10.1117/12.878934; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1117/12/878934.