Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison between execution and reading time of 3D ABUS versus HHUS.
Brunetti, Nicole; De Giorgis, Sara; Zawaideh, Jeries; Rossi, Federica; Calabrese, Massimo; Tagliafico, Alberto Stefano.
Affiliation
  • Brunetti N; Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL)- Radiology Section, University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy. nicole.brunetti.1992@gmail.com.
  • De Giorgis S; Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL)- Radiology Section, University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
  • Zawaideh J; Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL)- Radiology Section, University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
  • Rossi F; Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL)- Radiology Section, University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
  • Calabrese M; IRCCS - Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi. 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
  • Tagliafico AS; Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL)- Radiology Section, University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Radiol Med ; 125(12): 1243-1248, 2020 Dec.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32367322
BACKGROUND: Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Mammography is supplemented with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) to increase sensitivity. Automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) is an alternative to HHUS. Our study wanted to assess the difference in execution and reading time between ABUS and HHUS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: N = 221 women were evaluated consecutively between January 2019 and June 2019 (average age 53 years; range 24-89). The execution and reading time of ABUS and HHUS was calculated with an available stopwatch. Time started for both procedures when the patient was ready on the examination table to be examined to the end of image acquisition and interpretation. RESULTS: No patients interrupted the exam due to pain or discomfort. N = 221 women underwent ABUS and HHUS; N = 11 patients refused to undergo both procedures due to time constraints and refused ABUS; therefore, 210 patients were enrolled with both ABUS and HHUS available. The average time to perform and read the exam was 5 min for HHUS (DS ± 1.5) with a maximum time of 11 min and a minimum of 2 min. The average time with ABUS was 17 min (DS ± 3.8, with a maximum time of 31 min and a minimum time of 9 min). The ABUS technique took longer to be performed in all patients, with an average difference of 11 min (range 3-23 min) per patient, P < 0,001. Separating ABUS execution from reading time we highlighted as ABUS execution is more time-consuming respect HHUS. In addition, we can underline that time required by radiologists is longer for ABUS even only considering the interpretation time of the exam. CONCLUSION: A significant difference was observed in the execution and reading time of the two exams, where the HHUS method was more rapid and tolerated.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ultrasonography, Mammary / Breast Density Type of study: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged Language: En Year: 2020 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ultrasonography, Mammary / Breast Density Type of study: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged Language: En Year: 2020 Type: Article