Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Automated Volume Breast Scanner to Hand Held Ultrasound for Diagnostic Breast Exam

NCT ID: NCT02789163

Last Updated: 2016-06-02

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

90 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-07-31

Study Completion Date

2013-08-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Women age \>18 scheduled for a diagnostic ultrasound examination had both a hand held ultrasound and an automated breast volume scan. Exams were performed by different technologists. Images were blinded and blinded read for diagnostic accuracy of the two examinations

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Women aged 18 years and above presenting for a diagnostic ultrasound secondary to a palpable mass, abnormal mammogram, follow-up ultrasound abnormality, or discharge were asked to participate in the study. If the patient had both a palpable mass and a mammogram that had an abnormality the indication was listed as a palpable abnormality. Exclusion criteria included inability to give informed consent and abnormality of the breast that is larger than one quadrant. No patients were excluded from the study.

All patients received both a Hand Held (HH) and Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS) ultrasound. Patients were initially randomized to have either a HH or an ABVS. The HH ultrasound was performed by one of 4 sonographers that had a minimum of 10 years experience in breast ultrasound. A different sonographer than the one performing the HH or mammography technician performed ABVS. All technologists performing ABVS participated in a training course on ABVS and performed at least 10 patients satisfactorily before beginning the study. The choice of a mammography technician or sonography to perform the ABVS was randomized. Both the sonographer performing the HH and the sonographer or mammography technologist performing the ABVS were provided the patient's history and results of the mammogram if performed for placement of the ABVS and region of interest for the HH. However the results of the HH or ABVS were not available to the person performing the second examination.

Final diagnosis was performed either by a 12 gauge core biopsy (Celero, Hologic, Marlborough, MA ) or confirmation of a benign lesion by no significant change over 2 years.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Breast Mass

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

CASE_ONLY

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Ultrasound

breast ultrasound; hand held and automated volume breast scanner

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Women aged 18 years and above presenting for a diagnostic ultrasound secondary to a palpable mass, abnormal mammogram, follow-up ultrasound abnormality, or discharge were asked to participate in the study.

Exclusion Criteria

* Unable to give informed consent
* breast abnormality greater than one quadrant
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Northeastern Ohio Radiology Research and Education Fund

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Richard G. Barr MD, PhD

Medical Director

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Richard G Barr, MD, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Northeastern Ohio Radiology Research and Education Fund

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

AVBS DIAG

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.