Best Practice Guideline – DEGUM Recommendations on Breast Ultrasound

Abstract

Alongside mammography, breast ultrasound is an important and well-established method in assessment of breast lesions. With the “Best Practice Guideline”, the DEGUM Breast Ultrasound (in German, “Mammasonografie”) working group, intends to describe the additional and optional application modalities for the diagnostic confirmation of breast findings and to express DEGUM recommendations in this Part II, in addition to the current dignity criteria and assessment categories published in Part I, in order to facilitate the differential diagnosis of ambiguous lesions.

The present “Best Practice Guideline” has set itself the goal of meeting the requirements for quality assurance and ensuring quality-controlled performance of breast ultrasound. The most important aspects of quality assurance are explained in this Part II of the Best Practice Guideline.

Keywords

DEGUM - Guidelines - Breast - METHODS & TECHNIQUES - ultrasound - Gynecology

Publication History

Received: 04 November 2022

Accepted after revision: 26 January 2023

Article published online:
18 April 2023

• Literatur

• 1 Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Version 4.3, 2020, AWMF Registernummer: 032–045OL.
• 2 Vaupel P. Tumor blood flow. In: Molls M, Vaupel P. Blood perfusion and microenvironment of human tumors. Berlin: Springer; 1998: 40-45
• 3 Blohmer JU, Reinhardt M, Schmalisch G. et al. Videodensitometry in the examination of focal breast lesions after injection of an ultrasound contrast agent. Anticancer Res 2006; 26 (02) 1691-1698 (PMID: 16617563)
• 4 Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Münch S. et al. Methodenanalyse zur Doppleruntersuchung der weiblichen Brust [Analysis of a method for Doppler study of the female breast]. Ultraschall Med 1990; 11 (04) 196-201 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1011561.
• 5 Madjar H, Prömpeler HJ, Sauerbrei W. et al. Color Doppler flow criteria of breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 1994; 20 (09) 849-858 DOI: 10.1016/0301-5629(94)90045-0. (PMID: 7886845)
• 6 Lee EJ, Chang YW, Oh E. et al. Reproducibility and diagnostic performance of the vascular index of superb microvascular imaging in real-time breast ultrasonography for evaluating breast masses. Ultrasonography 2020; DOI: 10.14366/usg.20153. (PMID: 33455154)
• 7 Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Hansen L. et al. Multivariate Analysis of Flow Data in Breast Lesions and Validation in a Normal Clinical Setting. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 511-517 DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245800. (PMID: 21080308)
• 8 Madjar H, Prömpeler HJ, Del Favero C. et al. A new Doppler signal enhancing agent for flow assessment in breast lesions. Eur J Ultrasound 2000; 12 (02) 123-130 DOI: 10.1016/s0929-8266(00)00105-1.
• 9 Kapetas P, Clauser P, Woitek R. et al. Quantitative Multiparametric Breast Ultrasound: Application of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Elastography Leads to an Improved Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Lesions. Invest Radiol 2019; 54 (05) 257-264 DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000543. (PMID: 30632985)
• 10 Svensson W, Pandian AJ, Hashimoto H. The use of Breast Ultrasound Color Doppler Vascular Pattern Morphology Improves Diagnostic Sensitivity with minimal Change of Specificity. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 466-474 DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1109478. (PMID: 20094978)
• 11 Hallock GG. Acoustic Doppler sonography, color duplex ultrasound, and laser Doppler flowmetry as tools for successful autologous breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2011; 38 (02) 203-211 DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2011.03.001. (PMID: 21620145)
• 12 American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR- BI-RADS – Ultrasound. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Breast Imaging Atlas. 5^th ed. In: Reston VA. American College of Radiology. 2013
• 13 Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A. et al. BI-RADS analoge DEGUM Kriterien von Ultraschallbefunden der Brust – Konsensus des Arbeitskreises Mammasonographie der DEGUM. Ultraschall Med 2006; 27: 374-379 DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-926943.
• 14 Bader W, Vogel-Minea C, Blohmer JU. et al. Best Practice Guideline – Empfehlungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung und Beurteilung der Mammasonografie – TEIL I -Untersuchungstechnik, Ultraschall DEGUM Kriterien und deren Dokumentation. Ultraschall Med 2022; 43 (06) 570-582 DOI: 10.1055/a-1634-5021.
• 15 Ophir J, Céspedes I, Ponnekanti H. et al. Elastography: A quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 1991; 13 (02) 111-134 DOI: 10.1177/016173469101300201. (PMID: 1858217)
• 16 Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F. et al. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging 1998; 20 (04) 260-274 DOI: 10.1177/016173469802000403. (PMID: 10197347)
• 17 Wells PNT, Liang HD. et al. Medical ultrasound: Imaging of soft tissue strain and elasticity. J R Soc Interface 2011; 8 (64) 1521-1549 DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2011.0054. (PMID: 21680780)
• 18 Barr RG. Sonographic breast elastography: a primer. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31 (05) 773-783 DOI: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.5.773. (PMID: 22535725)
• 19 Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Weber S. et al. Multicenter study of ultrasound real-time tissue elastography in 779 cases for the assessment of breast lesions: improved diagnostic performance by combining the BI-RADS-US classification system with sonoelastography. Ultraschall Med 2010; 31 (05) 484-491 DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245282.
• 20 Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Degenhardt F. et al. Diagnostische Aussagekraft der Strain-Ratio-Messung zur Unterscheidung zwischen malignen und benignen Brusttumoren. Ultraschall Med 2011; 32 (04) 400-405 DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245335.
• 21 Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH. et al. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 133 (01) 23-35 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1857-8.
• 22 Wojcinski S, Boehme E, Farrokh A. et al. Ultrasound real-time elastography can predict malignancy in BI-RADS-US 3 lesions. BMC Cancer 2013; 13: 159 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-159. (PMID: 23530903)
• 23 Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH. et al. Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound elastography for differentiation of malignant and benign breast abnormalities: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 134 (03) 923-931 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2020-x. (PMID: 22418703)
• 24 Barr RG, De Silvestri A, Scotti V. et al. Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy of the 3 Interpreting Methods of Breast Strain Elastography: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38 (06) 1397-1404 DOI: 10.1002/jum.14849. (PMID: 30411806)
• 25 Golatta M, Schweitzer-Martin M, Harcos A. et al. Evaluation of virtual touch tissue Imaging quantification, a new shear wave velocity imaging method, for breast lesion assessment by ultrasound. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 960262 DOI: 10.1155/2014/960262. (PMID: 24800257)
• 26 Ianculescu V, Ciolovan LM, Dunant A. et al. Added value of Virtual Touch IQ shear wave elastography in the ultrasound assessment of breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83 (05) 773-777 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.01.021. (PMID: 24602803)
• 27 Kapetas P, Clauser P, Woitek R. et al. Virtual Touch IQ elastography reduces unnecessary breast biopsies by applying quantitative “rule-in” and “rule-out” threshold values. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 3583 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22065-7. (PMID: 29483627)
• 28 Sun JW, Wang XL, Zhao Q. et al. Virtual touch tissue imaging and quantification (VTIQ) in the evaluation of breast lesions: The associated factors leading to misdiagnosis. Eur J Radiol 2019; 110: 97-104 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.11.021. (PMID: 30599880)
• 29 Li XL, Xu HX, Bo XW. et al. Value of Virtual Touch Tissue Imaging Quantification for Evaluation of Ultrasound Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System Category 4 Lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42 (09) 2050-2057 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.04.002. (PMID: 27174418)
• 30 Kong WT, Zhou WJ, Wang Y. et al. The value of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant breast lesions. J Med Ultrason (2001) 2019; 46 (04) 459-466 DOI: 10.1007/s10396-019-00948-0.
• 31 Wojcinski S, Brandhorst K, Sadigh G. et al. Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging with Virtual Touch TM tissue quantification: mean shear wave velocity of malignant and benign breast masses. Int J Womens Health 2013; 5: 619-627 DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S50953.
• 32 Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ. et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 Masses. Radiology 2012; 262 (02) 435-449 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110640.
• 33 Bamber J, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF. et al. EFSUMG Guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology. Ultraschall Med 2013; 34 (02) 169-184 DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1335205.
• 34 Schäfer F, Hooley R, Ohlinger R. et al. ShearWave Elastography multinational breast study: additional SWE features support potential to downgrade BI-RADS-3 lesions. Ultraschall Med 2013; 34 (03) 254-259 DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1335523.
• 35 Golatta M, Pfob A, Büsch C. et al. The Potential of Shear-Wave Elastography to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in Breast Cancer Diagnostics – An International, Diagnostic, Multicenter Trial. UiM 2021; DOI: 10.1055/a-1543-6156.
• 36 Pillai A, Voruganti T, Barr R. et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Shear-Wave Elastography for Breast Lesion Characterization in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Coll Radiol 2022; 19 (05) 625-634.e0 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.02.022.
• 37 Barr RG. Breast elastography: How to Perform and Integrate Into a “Best–Practice” Patient Treatment Algorithm. J Ultrasound Med 2020; 39 (01) 7-17 DOI: 10.1002/jum.15137. (PMID: 31617225)
• 38 Golatta M, Pfob A, Büsch C. et al. The potential of combined shear-wave and strain elastography to reduce unnecessary biopsies in breast cancer diagnostics – An international, multicenter trial. Eur J Cancer 2022; 161: 1-9 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.11.005.
• 39 Comission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO); Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Anforderungen an die Hygiene bei Punktionen und Injektionen. Bundesgesundheitsbl 2011; 54: 1135-1144
• 40 Heil J, Hug S, Martiny H. et al. Standards of hygiene for ultrasound-guided core cut biopsies of the breast. Ultraschall Med 2018; 39 (06) 636-642 DOI: 10.1055/a-0667-7898. (PMID: 30253429)
• 41 Gruber I, Oberlechner E, Heck K. et al. Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy: Comparison of 16-Gauge versus 14-Gauge Needle and the Effect of Coaxial Guidance in 1065 Breast Biopsies – A Prospective Randomized Clinical Noninferiority Trial. Ultraschall Med 2020; 41 (05) 534-543 DOI: 10.1055/a-1014-2628. (PMID: 31791085)
• 42 Krainick-Strobel U, Huber B, Majer I. et al. Complete extirpation of benign breast lesions with an ultrasound-guided vacuum biopsy system. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29 (03) 342-346 DOI: 10.1002/uog.3840.
• 43 Hahn M, Krainick-Strobel U, Toellner T. et al. Minimally Invasive Breast Intervention Study Group (AG MiMi) of the German Society of Senology (DGS); Study Group for Breast Ultrasonography of the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM). Interdisciplinary consensus recommendations for the use of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy under sonographic guidance: first update 2012. Ultraschall Med 2012; 33 (04) 366-371 DOI: 10.1055/s-00332-1312831. (PMID: 22723042)
• 44 Mc Mahon P, Reichmann M, Dodelzon K. Bleeding risk after percutaneous breast needle biopsy in patients on anticoagulation therapy. Clin Imaging 2021; 70: 114-117 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.09.014.
• 45 Chesebro AL, Chikarmane SA, Ritner JA. et al. Troubleshooting to Overcome Technical Challenges in Image-guided Breast Biopsy. Radiographics 2017; 37: 705-718 DOI: 10.1148/rg.2017160117. (PMID: 28410063)
• 46 https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/001–005.html
• 47 Rotten D, Levaillant JM, Zerat L. Analysis of normal breast tissue and of solid breast masses using three-dimensional ultrasound mammography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14 (02) 114-124 DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14020114.x. (PMID: 10492871)
• 48 Weismann C, Hergan K. Aktueller Stand der 3D-/4D-Volumensonografie der Mamma [Current status of 3D/4D volume ultrasound of the breast]. Ultraschall in Med 2007; 28 (03) 273-282 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-963225. (PMID: 17583839)
• 49 Merz E, Oberstein A. 3D and 4D breast ultrasound. In: Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Vol. 2: Gynecology. New York: Thieme Stuttgart; 2007
• 50 Weismann C, Mayr C, Egger H. et al. Breast sonography — 2D, 3D, 4D ultrasound or elastography?. Breast Care (Basel) 2011; 6 (02) 98-103 DOI: 10.1159/000327504. (PMID: 21673819)
• 51 Merz E, Kurjak A. 1989–2019: 30 Years of 3D Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018; 12 (02) 1-5
• 52 Hackelöer BJ, Lauth G, Duda V. et al. Neue Möglichkeiten der Ultraschallmammographie [New aspects in ultrasound mammography (author’s translation)]. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1980; 40 (04) 301-312 DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1037342.
• 53 Madjar H, Mendelson EB. The practice of breast ultrasound. Techniques – Findings – Differential diagnosis. New York: Thieme Stuttgart; 2008
• 54 Hille H, Vetter M, Hackelöer BJ. The accuracy of BI-RADS classification of breast ultrasound as a first- line imaging method. Ultraschall Med 2012; 33 (02) 160-163 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281667. (PMID: 21877320)
• 55 Merz E. 3-D ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis. In: Merz E. Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Vol. 1: Obstetrics. New York: Thieme Stuttgart; 2005: 516-528
• 56 Merz E, Oberstein A. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the evaluation of breast masses: a multiplanar analysis of the growth pattern of 180 tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 506-507
• 57 Hackelöer BJ. Bildgebende Methoden in der Mammadiagnostik – welche ist die beste?. J Gynäkol Endokrinol 2017; 20: 145-150 DOI: 10.1007/s41975-017-0022-0.
• 58 Weismann CF, Forstner R, Prokop E. et al. Three-dimensional targeting: a new three-dimensional ultrasound technique to evaluate needle position during breast biopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16 (04) 359-364 DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00182.x.
• 59 Lell M, Wenkel E, Aichinger U. et al. Einsatz des 3D Ultraschalls bei der Stanzbiopsie unklarer Mammaläsionen [3D Ultrasound in core breast biopsy]. Ultraschall Med 2004; 25 (02) 126-130 DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813103.
• 60 Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ. et al. Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (03) 227-236 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa062790.
• 61 Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW. et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the Somolnsight Study. Radiology 2015; 274 (03) 663-673 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132832.
• 62 Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan K. et al. Adding 3D Automated Breast Ultrasound to Mammography Screening in women with heterogeneosly and extremly dense breasts: Report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85 (09) 1554-1563 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.06.004.
• 63 Grady I, Gorsuch-Rafferty H, Hansen P. Sonographic Tomography for the preoperative staging of breast cancer prior to surgery. J Ultrasound 2010; 13 (02) 41-45 DOI: 10.1016/j.jus 2010.07.005. (PMID: 23396900)
• 64 Schulz-Wendtland R, Wittenberg T, Michel T. et al. Zukunft mammographiebasierter Bildgebung [Future of mammography-based imaging]. Radiologe 2014; 54 (03) 217-223 DOI: 10.1007/s00117-013-2578-2.
• 65 Hopp T, Baltzer P, Dietzel M. et al. 2D/3D image fusion of X-ray mammograms with breast MRI: visualizing dynamic contrast enhancement in mammograms. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2012; 7 (03) 339-348 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-011-0623-z.
• 66 Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J. et al. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET–CT. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (01) 32-39 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900043.
• 67 Richter K, Prihoda H, Heywang-Köbrunner S. et al. Description and first clinical use of a new system for combined mammography and automated clinical amplitude/velocity reconstructive imaging breast sonography. Invest Radiol 1997; 32 (01) 19-28 DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199701000-00004. (PMID: 9007644)
• 68 Richter K, Hamm B, Heywang-Köbrunner S. et al. Automatisierte Mammasonographie und Mammographie: Differenzierung maligner und benigner Mammaläsionen [Automated mammary sonography and mammography: the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions]. Rofo 1998; 169 (03) 245-52 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1015085.
• 69 Schulz-Wendtland R, Jud SM, Fasching PA. et al. A Standard Mammography Unit – Standard 3D Ultrasound Probe Fusion Prototype: First Results. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77 (06) 679-685 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-107034. (PMID: 28713173)
• 70 Emons J, Wunderle M, Hartmann A. et al. Initial clinical results with a fusion prototype for mammography and three-dimensional ultrasound with a standard mammography system and a standard ultrasound probe. Acta Radiol 2018; 59 (12) 1406-1413 DOI: 10.1177/0284185118762249.
• 71 Wasner S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Emons J. Fusion von Mammographie und Ultraschall [Fusion of mammography and mammasonography]. Radiologe 2021; 61 (02) 166-169 DOI: 10.1007/s00117-020-00796-x.
• 72 Schäfgen B, Juskic M, Radicke M. et al. Evaluation oft he FUSION-X-US-II prototype to combine automated breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2021; 31 (06) 3712-3720 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07573-3. (PMID: 33313983)
• 73 Schaefgen B, Heil J, Barr RG. et al. Initial results of the FUSION-X-US prototype combining 3D automated breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (06) 2499-2506 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5235-8. (PMID: 29302784)
• 74 Zhang X, Lin X, Zhang Z. et al. Artificial Intelligence Medical Ultrasound Equipment: Application of Breast Lesions Detection. Ultrason Imaging 2020; 42 (04) 191-202 DOI: 10.1177/0161734620928453. (PMID: 32546066)
• 75 Duda VF, Storch A. Mammasonografische Stolpersteine – Ersetzt Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) Erfahrungswissen?. FRAUENARZT 2020; 61/11: 762-765
• 76 Torres-Velázquez M, Chen WJ, Li X. et al. Application and Construction of Deep Learning Networks in Medical Imaging. IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences 2021; 5 (02) 137-159 DOI: 10.1109/trpms.2020.3030611.
• 77 van Zelst JC, Tan T, Mann RM. et al. Validation of radiologists’ findings by computer-aided detection (CAD) software in breast cancer detection with automated 3D breast ultrasound: a concept study in implementation of artificial intelligence software. Acta Radiol 2020; 61 (03) 312-320 DOI: 10.1177/0284185119858051.
• 78 Wang Y, Choi EJ, Choi Y. et al. Breast Cancer Classification in Automated Breast Ultrasound Using Multiview Convolutional Neural Network with Transfer Learning. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020; 46 (05) 1119-1132 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.01.001.
• 79 Dembrower K, Wåhlin E, Liu Y. et al. Effect of artificial intelligence-based triaging of breast cancer screening mammograms on cancer detection and radiologist workload: a retrospective simulation study. Lancet Digit Health 2020; 2 (09) e468-e474 DOI: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30185-0. (PMID: 33328114)
• 80 Cao Z, Duan L, Yang G. et al. An experimental study on breast lesion detection and classification from ultrasound images using deep learning architectures. BMC Med Imaging 2019; 19 (01) 51 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-019-0349-x.
• 81 Wu GG, Zhou LQ, Xu JW. et al. Artificial intelligence in breast ultrasound. World J Radiol 2019; 11 (02) 19-26 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v11.i2.19. (PMID: 30858931)
• 82 Zhang Q, Xiao Y, Dai W. et al. Deep learning based classification of breast tumors with shear-wave elastography. Ultrasonics 2016; 72: 150-157 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2016.08.004.
• 83 Madjar H, Mundinger A, Degenhardt F. et al. Qualitätskontrolle in der Mamma-Sonographie. [Quality control in breast sonography]. Ultraschall Med 2003; 24 (03) 190-194 DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-40059.
• 84 Wildner S, Kollmann C. Technische Ultraschall-Qualitätssicherung im Rahmen des österreichischen Mammografie-Screening-Pilotprojekts nach EUREF-Ö: Konzept und praktische Durchführung. Radiopraxis 2013; 6: 153-159
• 85 https://www.degum.de/arbeitskreise/mammasonografie/mehrstufenkonzept-zertifizierung.html
• 86 Schaefer FK, Waldmann A, Katalinic A. et al. Influence of additional breast ultrasound on cancer detection in a cohort study for qualitiy assurance in breast diagnosis – analysis of 102,577 diagnostic procedures. Eur Radiol 2010; 20 (05) 1085-1092 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1641-x.
• 87 Waldmann A, Adrich S, Eisemann N. et al. Struktur- und Prozessqualität in der qualitätsgesicherten Mammadiagnostik in Schleswig-Holstein [Structure and process quality of quality-assured mamma diagnostics in Schleswig-Holstein]. Rofo 2012; 184 (02) 113-121 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281983.
• 88 www.kbv.de. www.kbv.de/html/ultraschall.php
• 89 Kollmann C, deKorte C, Dudley NJ. et al. EFSUMB Technical Quality Assurance Group –US-TQA/B. Guideline for Technical Quality Assurance(TQA) of ultrasound devices (B-Mode)—version 1.0 (July 2012):EFSUMB technical Quality Assurance Group – US-TQA/B. Ultraschall Med 2012; 33 (06) 544-549 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325347.
• 90 https://dx.doi.org/10.31030/3306068