Application of S-detect combined with virtual touch imaging quantification in ultrasound for diagnosis of breast mass.

Abstract

Ultrasound is a safe and timely diagnosis method commonly used for breast lesion, however it depends on the operator to a certain degree. As an emerging technology, artificial intelligence can be combined with ultrasound in depth to improve the intelligence and precision of ultrasound diagnosis and avoid diagnostic errors caused by subjectivity of radiologists. This paper aims to investigate the value of artificial intelligence S-detect system combined with virtual touch imaging quantification (VTIQ) technique in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses by conventional ultrasound (CUS). respectively, and AUCs for them were 0.74, 0.86, 0.79, and 0.94, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of CUS+S-detect was higher than that of CUS (P<0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of CUS+S-detect was higher than that of CUS (P<0.05). The diagnostic specificity of CUS+VTIQ was higher than that of CUS (P<0.05). The diagnostic accuracy and AUC of CUS+S-detect+VTIQ were higher than those of S-detect or VTIQ applied to CUS alone (P<0.05). The sensitivities of CUS for senior radiologists, CUS for junior radiologists, CUS+S-detect+VTIQ for senior radiologists, and CUS+S-detect+VTIQ for junior radiologists were 60.00%, 80.00%, 72.73%, and 90.00%, respectively, when diagnosing benign and malignant breast masses in 50 randomly selected cases. The specificities for them was 66.67%, 76.67%, 80.00%, and 81.25%, respectively. The accuracies for them was 64.00%, 78.00%, 80.00%, and 88.00%, respectively. The AUCs for them were 0.63, 0.78, 0.88, and 0.80, respectively. Compared with the CUS for junior radiologists, the CUS+S-detect+VTIQ for junior radiologists had higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (all P<0.05). The consistency of the combined application of S-detect and VTIQ for diagnosing breast masses at 2 different times was good among junior radiologists (Kappa=0.800). CUS, S-detects, and VTIQ were used to differentially diagnose benign and malignant breast masses in 108 cases, and the final pathological results were referred to as the gold standard for classifying breast masses. The diagnostic efficacy were evaluated and compared, among the 3 methods and among S-detect applied to CUS (CUS+S-detect), VTIQ applied to CUS (CUS+VTIQ), and S-detect combined with VTIQ applied to CUS (CUS+S-detect+VTIQ). Fifty cases were acquired randomly from the collected breast masses, and 2 radiologists with different years of experience (2 and 8 years) used S-detect combined with VTIQ for the ultrasonic differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses. The differences in sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the 3 diagnostic methods of CUS, S-detect, and VTIQ were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). The sensitivities of CUS, CUS+Sdetect, CUS+VTIQ, and CUS+S-detect+VTIQ were 78.57%, 92.86%, 69.05%, and 95.24%, respectively, the specificities for them were 69.70%, 78.79%, 87.88%, and 92.42%, respectively, the accuracies for them were 73.15%, 84.26%, 80.56%, and 93.52%. S-detect combined with VTIQ when applied to CUS can overcome the shortcomings of separate applications and complement each other, especially for junior radiologists, and can more effectively improve the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound for benign and malignant breast masses.