This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of an ABUS in an academic radiology department over the first three years after its implementation. Methods: In this retrospective study women undergoing ABUS examination for screening and diagnostic purposes between October 2015-2018 were included in case of sufficient follow-up and established diagnosis. Women underwent ABUS + /- mammography in the same day. BI-RADS 1/ 2 cases with cancer diagnosis during follow-up and already visible in the previous exam were considered false negative (FN). BI-RADS 3/4 cases proved benign were considered false positive (FP). FP and number of additional targeted HHUS (addHHUS) were compared over the three years. Results: 1248 women (51.2 ± 11.2 years) were included: 956 (77.3 %) underwent ABUS+mammography; 283 (29.3 %) ABUS only. Mean follow-up ± SD was 53.5 ± 17.8 month. Thirty-three malignancies were present in the investigated exams. In 28/ 33 cases (84.8 %), lesions were classified BI-RADS 4 or 5 and one (3.6 %) lesion was only visible in ABUS. 3/33 malignancies (9 %) were classified BI-RADS 3. 2/33 (6 %) were visible in mammography and ABUS but not recognized and classified BI-RADS 2 (FN rate 6.1 %). Retrospectively, both cases had "retraction phenomenon sign" in the coronal images. BI-RADS 3 and BI-RADS 4 without a malignancy were attributed to 172 (13.8 %) and 14 (1.1 %) cases, respectively corresponding to a FP rate of 15.3 %. The number of FP as well as the number of addHHUS significantly reduced over the three years (both p < 0.001). Conclusions: After the implementation of an ABUS FP cases and addHHUS reduce over the time.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nikolova et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: