Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 28, 2025
Integrating Augmented Reality Tools in Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Prognostication and Diagnosis
Published on: February 6, 2020
Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound: a meta-analysis
Xiaohui Zhang1, Juan Chen2, Yidong Zhou1
1Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100032, China.
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.
