Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?
Purpose To compare automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) with hand-held bilateral whole breast ultrasound (HHUS) prospectively in regards to patient workflow, woman preference, efficacy in lesion detection, and characterization. Materials and methods Supplemental screening was performed with b...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2020-05, Vol.301 (5), p.1257-1265 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1265 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1257 |
| container_title | Archives of gynecology and obstetrics |
| container_volume | 301 |
| creator | Tutar, Burçin Esen Icten, Gül Guldogan, Nilgün Kara, Halil Arıkan, Akif Enes Tutar, Onur Uras, Cihan |
| description | Purpose
To compare automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) with hand-held bilateral whole breast ultrasound (HHUS) prospectively in regards to patient workflow, woman preference, efficacy in lesion detection, and characterization.
Materials and methods
Supplemental screening was performed with both ABVS and HHUS to 345 women with dense breasts and negative mammograms. Acquisition and evaluation times were recorded. Lesions were classified according to BIRADS US criteria and compared one to one. Women were recalled for a secondary HHUS examination if ABVS showed any additional lesions. Findings were compared based on biopsy results and/or 36–48 months of follow-up.
Results
Findings could be compared for 340 women. There were two carcinomas which were detected by both methods, with no interval cancers in the follow-up period. Recall rate was 46/340 (13.05%) for ABVS and 4/340 (1.18%) for HHUS. ABVS recalls decreased with experience. HHUS had more true negative (BIRADS 1–2) results, while ABVS had more false positive ones (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2384211155</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2384211155</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a2684d26f9d9bf7016bb24311c716fbf4767915d9d589ffdbc87b630503e55bc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EotPCC7BAltiwaMA_cZywQWjEn1SJBXQdOfbNjKvECb4Oo_KgPA9OZwoSC1a-8vnu8bEOIc84e8UZ06-RsZKVBROsYEoxXhwekA0vpSiY5vwh2bBmnVmlz8g54g1jXNR19ZicSSG40rzekF_baZxN9DgFOvXULGkaTQJHf0DEBeneBFfsYXC0i2Aw0euv1AeKyzwPMEJIZqBoI0DwYbcqBm_H-c7EW3qYMkIPPu2pg4BwMsE31CNNe4hADXW-7_MULNAIOxPd6pQ3TaBzhJN0SQdAn0M6SGDTOuVk95d2b6KxCaL_aVbt7RPyqDcDwtPTeUGuP7z_tv1UXH35-Hn77qqwUqtUGFHVpRNV37im6zXjVdeJUnJuNa_6ri91pRuuXONU3fS962ytu0oyxSQo1Vl5QV4efec4fV8AUzt6tDAMJsC0YCtkXQrOuVIZffEPejMtMeR0mWpko5muy0yJI2XjhJi_387Rjybetpy1a-vtsfU2t97etd4e8tLzk_XSjeD-rNzXnAF5BDBLYQfx79v_sf0Ntqe9jw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2393970784</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Tutar, Burçin ; Esen Icten, Gül ; Guldogan, Nilgün ; Kara, Halil ; Arıkan, Akif Enes ; Tutar, Onur ; Uras, Cihan</creator><creatorcontrib>Tutar, Burçin ; Esen Icten, Gül ; Guldogan, Nilgün ; Kara, Halil ; Arıkan, Akif Enes ; Tutar, Onur ; Uras, Cihan</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) with hand-held bilateral whole breast ultrasound (HHUS) prospectively in regards to patient workflow, woman preference, efficacy in lesion detection, and characterization.
Materials and methods
Supplemental screening was performed with both ABVS and HHUS to 345 women with dense breasts and negative mammograms. Acquisition and evaluation times were recorded. Lesions were classified according to BIRADS US criteria and compared one to one. Women were recalled for a secondary HHUS examination if ABVS showed any additional lesions. Findings were compared based on biopsy results and/or 36–48 months of follow-up.
Results
Findings could be compared for 340 women. There were two carcinomas which were detected by both methods, with no interval cancers in the follow-up period. Recall rate was 46/340 (13.05%) for ABVS and 4/340 (1.18%) for HHUS. ABVS recalls decreased with experience. HHUS had more true negative (BIRADS 1–2) results, while ABVS had more false positive ones (
p
< 0.001). Positive predictive value was 4.17% for ABVS and 50% for HHUS. ABVS overdiagnosed shadowings (
p
< 0.01), distortions (
p
< 0.034), and irregular nodules (
p
< 0.001) in comparison to HHUS. At ABVS, 10.6% of women experienced severe pain. 59.7% stated that they would choose HHUS if they had the chance.
Conclusion
ABVS is as good as HHUS in lesion detection. However, the recall rate is higher and positive predictive value is lower with ABVS, which could result in more follow-ups, and more anxiety for the women. More than 50% women stated they would prefer HHUS if they were given the chance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0932-0067</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1432-0711</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0711</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32215718</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Biopsy ; Breast - diagnostic imaging ; Breast - pathology ; Breast cancer ; Breast Density ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Breasts ; Endocrinology ; Female ; Gynecologic Oncology ; Gynecology ; Human Genetics ; Humans ; Image Enhancement - methods ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Mammography - instrumentation ; Mammography - methods ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery ; Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - instrumentation ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020-05, Vol.301 (5), p.1257-1265</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a2684d26f9d9bf7016bb24311c716fbf4767915d9d589ffdbc87b630503e55bc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a2684d26f9d9bf7016bb24311c716fbf4767915d9d589ffdbc87b630503e55bc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1527-7155 ; 0000-0001-7855-0385 ; 0000-0003-1671-4510 ; 0000-0002-7296-5093 ; 0000-0002-6838-2311</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32215718$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tutar, Burçin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esen Icten, Gül</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guldogan, Nilgün</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kara, Halil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arıkan, Akif Enes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tutar, Onur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uras, Cihan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?</title><title>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</title><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) with hand-held bilateral whole breast ultrasound (HHUS) prospectively in regards to patient workflow, woman preference, efficacy in lesion detection, and characterization.
Materials and methods
Supplemental screening was performed with both ABVS and HHUS to 345 women with dense breasts and negative mammograms. Acquisition and evaluation times were recorded. Lesions were classified according to BIRADS US criteria and compared one to one. Women were recalled for a secondary HHUS examination if ABVS showed any additional lesions. Findings were compared based on biopsy results and/or 36–48 months of follow-up.
Results
Findings could be compared for 340 women. There were two carcinomas which were detected by both methods, with no interval cancers in the follow-up period. Recall rate was 46/340 (13.05%) for ABVS and 4/340 (1.18%) for HHUS. ABVS recalls decreased with experience. HHUS had more true negative (BIRADS 1–2) results, while ABVS had more false positive ones (
p
< 0.001). Positive predictive value was 4.17% for ABVS and 50% for HHUS. ABVS overdiagnosed shadowings (
p
< 0.01), distortions (
p
< 0.034), and irregular nodules (
p
< 0.001) in comparison to HHUS. At ABVS, 10.6% of women experienced severe pain. 59.7% stated that they would choose HHUS if they had the chance.
Conclusion
ABVS is as good as HHUS in lesion detection. However, the recall rate is higher and positive predictive value is lower with ABVS, which could result in more follow-ups, and more anxiety for the women. More than 50% women stated they would prefer HHUS if they were given the chance.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breast - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Density</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Breasts</subject><subject>Endocrinology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecologic Oncology</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Human Genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Mammography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery</subject><subject>Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - instrumentation</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>0932-0067</issn><issn>1432-0711</issn><issn>1432-0711</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EotPCC7BAltiwaMA_cZywQWjEn1SJBXQdOfbNjKvECb4Oo_KgPA9OZwoSC1a-8vnu8bEOIc84e8UZ06-RsZKVBROsYEoxXhwekA0vpSiY5vwh2bBmnVmlz8g54g1jXNR19ZicSSG40rzekF_baZxN9DgFOvXULGkaTQJHf0DEBeneBFfsYXC0i2Aw0euv1AeKyzwPMEJIZqBoI0DwYbcqBm_H-c7EW3qYMkIPPu2pg4BwMsE31CNNe4hADXW-7_MULNAIOxPd6pQ3TaBzhJN0SQdAn0M6SGDTOuVk95d2b6KxCaL_aVbt7RPyqDcDwtPTeUGuP7z_tv1UXH35-Hn77qqwUqtUGFHVpRNV37im6zXjVdeJUnJuNa_6ri91pRuuXONU3fS962ytu0oyxSQo1Vl5QV4efec4fV8AUzt6tDAMJsC0YCtkXQrOuVIZffEPejMtMeR0mWpko5muy0yJI2XjhJi_387Rjybetpy1a-vtsfU2t97etd4e8tLzk_XSjeD-rNzXnAF5BDBLYQfx79v_sf0Ntqe9jw</recordid><startdate>20200501</startdate><enddate>20200501</enddate><creator>Tutar, Burçin</creator><creator>Esen Icten, Gül</creator><creator>Guldogan, Nilgün</creator><creator>Kara, Halil</creator><creator>Arıkan, Akif Enes</creator><creator>Tutar, Onur</creator><creator>Uras, Cihan</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1527-7155</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7855-0385</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1671-4510</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7296-5093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6838-2311</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200501</creationdate><title>Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?</title><author>Tutar, Burçin ; Esen Icten, Gül ; Guldogan, Nilgün ; Kara, Halil ; Arıkan, Akif Enes ; Tutar, Onur ; Uras, Cihan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a2684d26f9d9bf7016bb24311c716fbf4767915d9d589ffdbc87b630503e55bc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breast - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Density</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Breasts</topic><topic>Endocrinology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecologic Oncology</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Human Genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Mammography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery</topic><topic>Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - instrumentation</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tutar, Burçin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esen Icten, Gül</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guldogan, Nilgün</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kara, Halil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arıkan, Akif Enes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tutar, Onur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uras, Cihan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tutar, Burçin</au><au>Esen Icten, Gül</au><au>Guldogan, Nilgün</au><au>Kara, Halil</au><au>Arıkan, Akif Enes</au><au>Tutar, Onur</au><au>Uras, Cihan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization?</atitle><jtitle>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle><stitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</stitle><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><date>2020-05-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>301</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1257</spage><epage>1265</epage><pages>1257-1265</pages><issn>0932-0067</issn><issn>1432-0711</issn><eissn>1432-0711</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) with hand-held bilateral whole breast ultrasound (HHUS) prospectively in regards to patient workflow, woman preference, efficacy in lesion detection, and characterization.
Materials and methods
Supplemental screening was performed with both ABVS and HHUS to 345 women with dense breasts and negative mammograms. Acquisition and evaluation times were recorded. Lesions were classified according to BIRADS US criteria and compared one to one. Women were recalled for a secondary HHUS examination if ABVS showed any additional lesions. Findings were compared based on biopsy results and/or 36–48 months of follow-up.
Results
Findings could be compared for 340 women. There were two carcinomas which were detected by both methods, with no interval cancers in the follow-up period. Recall rate was 46/340 (13.05%) for ABVS and 4/340 (1.18%) for HHUS. ABVS recalls decreased with experience. HHUS had more true negative (BIRADS 1–2) results, while ABVS had more false positive ones (
p
< 0.001). Positive predictive value was 4.17% for ABVS and 50% for HHUS. ABVS overdiagnosed shadowings (
p
< 0.01), distortions (
p
< 0.034), and irregular nodules (
p
< 0.001) in comparison to HHUS. At ABVS, 10.6% of women experienced severe pain. 59.7% stated that they would choose HHUS if they had the chance.
Conclusion
ABVS is as good as HHUS in lesion detection. However, the recall rate is higher and positive predictive value is lower with ABVS, which could result in more follow-ups, and more anxiety for the women. More than 50% women stated they would prefer HHUS if they were given the chance.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>32215718</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1527-7155</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7855-0385</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1671-4510</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7296-5093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6838-2311</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0932-0067 |
| ispartof | Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020-05, Vol.301 (5), p.1257-1265 |
| issn | 0932-0067 1432-0711 1432-0711 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2384211155 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adult Aged Biopsy Breast - diagnostic imaging Breast - pathology Breast cancer Breast Density Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - pathology Breasts Endocrinology Female Gynecologic Oncology Gynecology Human Genetics Humans Image Enhancement - methods Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods Mammography - instrumentation Mammography - methods Medical screening Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods Predictive Value of Tests Prospective Studies Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography, Mammary - instrumentation Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods Womens health |
| title | Comparison of automated versus hand-held breast US in supplemental screening in asymptomatic women with dense breasts: is there a difference regarding woman preference, lesion detection and lesion characterization? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T10%3A23%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20automated%20versus%20hand-held%20breast%20US%20in%20supplemental%20screening%20in%20asymptomatic%20women%20with%20dense%20breasts:%20is%20there%20a%20difference%20regarding%20woman%20preference,%20lesion%20detection%20and%20lesion%20characterization?&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20gynecology%20and%20obstetrics&rft.au=Tutar,%20Bur%C3%A7in&rft.date=2020-05-01&rft.volume=301&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1257&rft.epage=1265&rft.pages=1257-1265&rft.issn=0932-0067&rft.eissn=1432-0711&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00404-020-05501-w&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2384211155%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2393970784&rft_id=info:pmid/32215718&rfr_iscdi=true |