Outcomes included abnormal interpretation (recall) rate, short-interval follow-up recommendation rate (final BI-RADS 3), biopsy recommendation rate, cancer detection rate, false-positive rates, and positive predictive values. Adjusted estimates accounted for BCSC 5-year invasive breast cancer risk, facility type and profit status, time since last mammogram, and screening round.<\/p>\n
The 2 groups were similar by age and breast density, although ABUS was more often performed in non-Hispanic White women (80% vs 65%), in later study years, and in office settings rather than hospitals.<\/p>\n
Did ABUS reduce false-positive results compared with handheld ultrasound?<\/p>\n
In adjusted analyses, ABUS was associated with:<\/p>\n
A lower abnormal interpretation rate: 14.9% vs 19.2% (P < .0001)A lower short-interval follow-up recommendation rate: 3.0% vs 14.6% (P < .0001)A lower false-positive initial assessment rate: 14.6% vs 19.1% (P < .0001)<\/p>\n
These figures correspond to absolute differences of approximately 4 percentage points for abnormal interpretation, nearly 12 percentage points for short-interval follow-up, and 4.5 percentage points for false-positive initial assessment.<\/p>\n
The pattern held in a subset of 5 facilities that used both modalities. At those sites, abnormal interpretation rates were 16.9% for ABUS and 17.6% for HHUS, and short-interval follow-up rates were 35.2 vs 131.6 per 1,000 examinations, respectively.<\/p>\n
How did cancer detection and biopsy rates compare?<\/p>\n
Cancer detection and biopsy measures did not differ to a statistically significant degree between modalities. The unadjusted screen detection rate was 2.6 per 1,000 examinations with ABUS vs 1.7 per 1,000 with HHUS (P = .25). The positive predictive value of biopsy was 10.0% for ABUS vs 6.3% for HHUS, numerically about 50% greater but not statistically significant (P = .23).<\/p>\n
Adjusted biopsy recommendation rates were 3.0% for ABUS and 2.9% for HHUS, and adjusted false-positive biopsy recommendation rates were 2.7% for both modalities.<\/p>\n
Overall, 35 cancers were detected by HHUS and 11 by ABUS. The proportion of detected cancers that were in situ was 26% with HHUS vs 9% with ABUS (P = .24), a difference that was not statistically significant.<\/p>\n
Why did the 2 modalities produce different recall patterns?<\/p>\n
The type of initial recall differed by modality. ABUS was associated with a higher rate of initial BI-RADS 0 assessments (15% vs 8%), whereas HHUS produced far more BI-RADS 3 assessments at initial interpretation (10% vs 1%).<\/p>\n
The investigators noted that this distinction is clinically appropriate. Because ABUS images are interpreted after the patient leaves, findings typically require diagnostic HHUS to resolve and are therefore designated BI-RADS 0. With HHUS, a sonographer or radiologist can obtain additional focused images in real time. The authors speculated that many ABUS recalls may relate to imaging artifacts that are eliminated during diagnostic workup, allowing a negative or benign final assessment. They added that reader training and experience likely play an important role in the accuracy of ABUS, whereas operator dependence and image quality variation have a greater effect on HHUS.<\/p>\n
What are the key takeaways for oncology nurses?Prepare patients for what a recall means. Under ABUS, patients may be more likely to receive an initial BI-RADS 0 result requesting additional imaging, which indicates an incomplete assessment rather than a cancer diagnosis. In a recent Oncology Nursing News blog, Emily Mason Beard, BSN, RN, OCN, CBCN, described how a BI-RADS 0 report interpreted without clinical context led a patient to fear a cancer diagnosis, underscoring the value of timely nurse explanation.Expect fewer short-interval follow-up recommendations with ABUS. In this cohort, about 3% of ABUS examinations ended in a BI-RADS 3 short-interval follow-up recommendation vs nearly 15% with HHUS, which may reduce repeat imaging visits and associated waiting for patients.Discuss modality eligibility. Patients with chest-area implanted devices or piercings, breast implants, prior breast surgery, or sensitivity to the examination lotion may not be candidates for ABUS.Set expectations about biopsy. Biopsy recommendation and false-positive biopsy rates were similar between modalities, so patients should understand that a biopsy recommendation remains possible with either approach.Support shared decision-making. Patients notified of dense breast tissue may ask about supplemental screening options; nurses can explain that ABUS and HHUS showed similar cancer detection in this study, while noting that it was observational and did not measure sensitivity.References<\/p>\n
1. Rauscher GH, Alsheik N, Eavey J, et al. Comparison of supplemental breast cancer screening outcomes for automated versus handheld ultrasound. J Am Coll Radiol. 2026;23(10):1936-1945. doi:10.1016\/j.jacr.2026.06.018
2. Study finds automated breast ultrasound is an effective alternative to handheld ultrasound for breast cancer screening. News release. Elsevier. October 8, 2026. Accessed October 9, 2026. https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/about\/press-releases\/study-finds-automated-breast-ultrasound-is-an-effective-alternative-to-handheld-ultrasound-for-breast-cancer-screening
3. Beard EM. Why using AI to interpret mammogram results can cause unnecessary panic. Oncology Nursing News. September 16, 2026. Accessed October 9, 2026. https:\/\/www.oncnursingnews.com\/view\/why-using-ai-to-interpret-mammogram-results-can-cause-unnecessary-panic<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Outcomes included abnormal interpretation (recall) rate, short-interval follow-up recommendation rate (final BI-RADS 3), biopsy recommendation rate, cancer detection…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":631678,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[134,111,139,69],"class_list":["post-631677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-health","tag-health","tag-new-zealand","tag-newzealand","tag-nz"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/631677","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=631677"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/631677\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/631678"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=631677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=631677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=631677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}