Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To determine whether a dynamic ultrasound approach, termed anatomical scanning and interpretation, improves diagnostic performance in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions compared with conventional static-image BI-RADS assessment.</p> Methods <p>This prospective study evaluated 102 breast lesions (33 masses, 41 non-masses, and 28 distortions) classified as BI-RADS 3, 4a, or 4b. Fourteen ultrasound technologists underwent dedicated training in dynamic anatomical scanning and interpretation. Each lesion was evaluated using real-time video clips and independently categorized as requiring follow-up or biopsy. A subsequent physician–technologist consensus was performed. With histopathology as the reference standard, performance was assessed using ROC analysis, with AUC comparisons performed using the DeLong test.</p> Results <p>Among 102 lesions (58 benign, 44 malignant), individual technologist interpretation with dynamic imaging significantly improved diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.748, <i>p</i> = 0.0191) over static BI-RADS assessment (AUC = 0.619). Physician–technologist consensus showed further significant improvement (AUC = 0.865, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001). In subgroup analysis, dynamic interpretation outperformed static assessment for masses (AUC = 0.849, <i>p</i> = 0.0036), but not for non-mass lesions (AUC = 0.794) or distortions (AUC = 0.618). In contrast, physician–technologist consensus interpretation demonstrated superior performance compared with static assessment across all lesion types: masses (AUC = 0.879, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), non-mass lesions (AUC = 0.910, <i>p</i> = 0.0005), and distortions (AUC = 0.838, <i>p</i> = 0.0432).</p> Conclusion <p>Dynamic anatomical scanning and interpretation significantly improve diagnostic performance over conventional static BI-RADS assessment. For non-mass lesions and architectural distortions, anatomical interpretation based on consensus between the physician and the technologist is considered essential to achieve optimal diagnostic accuracy.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Dynamic anatomical ultrasound assessment for breast lesions: a prospective study of diagnostic performance

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月26日

查看全文
  • Ayumi Izumori,
  • Yumi Kokubu,
  • Takehiko Sakai,
  • Futoshi Akiyama,
  • Takuji Iwase,
  • Woo Kyung Moon,
  • Takayuki Ueno

摘要

Purpose

To determine whether a dynamic ultrasound approach, termed anatomical scanning and interpretation, improves diagnostic performance in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions compared with conventional static-image BI-RADS assessment.

Methods

This prospective study evaluated 102 breast lesions (33 masses, 41 non-masses, and 28 distortions) classified as BI-RADS 3, 4a, or 4b. Fourteen ultrasound technologists underwent dedicated training in dynamic anatomical scanning and interpretation. Each lesion was evaluated using real-time video clips and independently categorized as requiring follow-up or biopsy. A subsequent physician–technologist consensus was performed. With histopathology as the reference standard, performance was assessed using ROC analysis, with AUC comparisons performed using the DeLong test.

Results

Among 102 lesions (58 benign, 44 malignant), individual technologist interpretation with dynamic imaging significantly improved diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.748, p = 0.0191) over static BI-RADS assessment (AUC = 0.619). Physician–technologist consensus showed further significant improvement (AUC = 0.865, p < 0.0001). In subgroup analysis, dynamic interpretation outperformed static assessment for masses (AUC = 0.849, p = 0.0036), but not for non-mass lesions (AUC = 0.794) or distortions (AUC = 0.618). In contrast, physician–technologist consensus interpretation demonstrated superior performance compared with static assessment across all lesion types: masses (AUC = 0.879, p < 0.0001), non-mass lesions (AUC = 0.910, p = 0.0005), and distortions (AUC = 0.838, p = 0.0432).

Conclusion

Dynamic anatomical scanning and interpretation significantly improve diagnostic performance over conventional static BI-RADS assessment. For non-mass lesions and architectural distortions, anatomical interpretation based on consensus between the physician and the technologist is considered essential to achieve optimal diagnostic accuracy.