Study Finds Automated Breast Ultrasound Is an Effective Alternative to Handheld Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening

A new studyopens in new tab/window in the Journal of the American College of Radiologyopens in new tab/window, published by Elsevier, has found that automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and handheld ultrasound (HHUS) had similar cancer detection rates in women with dense breasts, while ABUS had a lower false-positive rate. It demonstrates that ABUS is a viable alternative to HHUS and can expand supplemental ultrasound screening capacity at radiology clinics.

There is increasing demand for ultrasound screening in addition to mammography following the enactment of state laws and federal rules requiring radiology clinics to inform women with dense breasts about the limitations of mammography. Because dense tissue and lesions both appear white on a mammogram, abnormalities can more easily go undetected.

HHUS has long been available for breast imaging but has drawbacks related to operator dependency and a lack of reproducibility. In 2012, ABUS was approved to conduct breast cancer screening as an adjunct to screening mammography, and it remains an emerging technology in screening for breast cancer.

While prior studies have evaluated ABUS and HHUS separately, as far as the investigators are aware, this is the first study directly comparing the screening performance of ABUS versus HHUS in clinical practice in the United States.

The researchers collected clinical data within three diverse registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and analyzed abnormal interpretation rates, short-interval follow-up (SIFU) recommendation rates, and their associated cancer detection and false-positive rates.

Across the three BCSC registries, there were a total of 25,328 screening ultrasound examinations (4,218 ABUS and 21,110 screening HHUS) included in these analyses, conducted among 21,446 women, and interpreted by 98 radiologists across 27 facilities.

“ABUS was associated with a lower abnormal interpretation rate and a lower false-positive initial assessment rate compared with HHUS,” explains lead investigator Garth H. Rauscher, PhD, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago, and University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago, IL. “There were no apparent differences in cancer detection rate, biopsy recommendation rate, or false-positive biopsy recommendation rate.”

The findings of the study suggest that ABUS is associated with less additional imaging and SIFU recommendations, while maintaining the same cancer detection rate.

“The results of our study provide the strongest evidence to date supporting the use of ABUS as an alternative to HHUS for supplemental screening of women with dense breasts,” concludes senior author Brian L. Sprague, PhD, Co-Leader, Population Sciences and Cancer Outcomes Program, University of Vermont Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.

Notes for editors

The article is“Comparison of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes for Automated Versus Handheld Ultrasound,” by Garth H. Rauscher, PhD, Nila Alsheik, MD, Joanna Eavey, MSPH, Laura Ichikawa, MS, Hannah Perry, MD, Kathryn Lowry, MD, Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Brian L. Sprague, PhD (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2026.06.018opens in new tab/window). It appears in the Journal of the American College of Radiology, volume 23, issue 10 (October 2026) published by Elsevier.

The article is openly available at https://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(26)00336-4/fulltextopens in new tab/window.

Full text of this article is also available to credentialed journalists upon request; contact Eileen Leahy at +1 732 406 1313 or [email protected]opens in new tab/window. Journalists wishing to interview the authors should contact Katherine Strotmeyer, Senior Director for Cancer Communications, UVM Cancer Center, at +1 802 656 3099 or [email protected]opens in new tab/window.

This research was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA248068). Data collection for this research was additionally supported by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium with funding from the National Cancer Institute (P01CA154292) and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM115516).

About the Journal of the American College of Radiology (JACR)

The official journal of the American College of Radiologyopens in new tab/window, JACRopens in new tab/window informs its readers of timely, pertinent, and important topics affecting the practice of diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, medical physicists, and radiation oncologists. The journal’s goals are to improve patient care, support the practice of radiology and imaging, and move the science forward in health services research and policy, clinical practice management, data science, training and education, and leadership. www.jacr.orgopens in new tab/window

About Elsevier

Elsevier is a global leader in advanced information and decision support. For over a century, we have been helping advance science and healthcare to advance human progress. We support academic and corporate research communities, doctors, nurses, future healthcare professionals, and educators across 170 countries in their vital work. We help impact makers achieve better outcomes with research and clinical-grade solutions built on the world’s leading evidence-based scientific and medical content, precision AI, and expert human assessment. We champion inclusion and sustainability, working with the communities that we serve. The Elsevier Foundationopens in new tab/window supports research and health partnerships around the world.

Elsevier is part of RELXopens in new tab/window, a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. For more information, visit www.elsevier.com and follow us on social media @elsevierconnect.