Prospective evaluation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound of breast BI-RADS 3-5 lesions.
Breast cancer
CEUS
Contrast ultrasonography
TI curve
Ultrasound
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 06 2020
17 06 2020
Historique:
received:
03
12
2019
accepted:
10
06
2020
entrez:
20
6
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
29
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine the benefit of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the assessment of breast lesions. A standardized contrast-enhanced ultrasound was performed in 230 breast lesions classified as BI-RADS category 3 to 5. All lesions were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analysis. MVI (MicroVascular Imaging) technique was used to derive qualitative analysis parameters; blood perfusion of the lesions was assessed (perfusion homogeneity, type of vascularization, enhancement degree). Quantitative analysis was conducted to estimate perfusion changes in the lesions within drawn regions of interest (ROI); parameters TTP (time to peak), PI (peak intensity), WIS (wash in slope), AUC (area under curve) were obtained from time intensity (TI) curves. Acquired data were statistically analyzed to assess the ability of each parameter to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions. The combination of parameters was also evaluated for the possibility of increasing the overall diagnostic accuracy. Biological nature of the lesions was verified by a pathologist. Benign lesions without histopathological verification (BI-RADS 3) were followed up for at least 24 months. Out of 230 lesions, 146 (64%) were benign, 67 (29%) were malignant, 17 (7%) lesions were eliminated. Malignant tumors showed statistically significantly lower TTP parameters (sensitivity 77.6%, specificity 52.7%) and higher WIS values (sensitivity 74.6%, specificity 66.4%) than benign tumors. Enhancement degree also proved to be statistically well discriminating as 55.2% of malignant lesions had a rich vascularity (sensitivity 89.6% and specificity 48.6%). The combination of quantitative analysis parameters (TTP, WIS) with enhancement degree did not result in higher accuracy in distinguishing between malignant and benign breast lesions. We have demonstrated that contrast-enhanced breast ultrasound has the potential to distinguish between malignant and benign lesions. In particular, this method could help to differentiate lesions BI-RADS category 3 and 4 and thus reduce the number of core-cut biopsies performed in benign lesions. Qualitative analysis, despite its subjective element, appeared to be more beneficial. A combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis did not increase the predictive capability of CEUS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To determine the benefit of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the assessment of breast lesions.
METHODS
A standardized contrast-enhanced ultrasound was performed in 230 breast lesions classified as BI-RADS category 3 to 5. All lesions were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analysis. MVI (MicroVascular Imaging) technique was used to derive qualitative analysis parameters; blood perfusion of the lesions was assessed (perfusion homogeneity, type of vascularization, enhancement degree). Quantitative analysis was conducted to estimate perfusion changes in the lesions within drawn regions of interest (ROI); parameters TTP (time to peak), PI (peak intensity), WIS (wash in slope), AUC (area under curve) were obtained from time intensity (TI) curves. Acquired data were statistically analyzed to assess the ability of each parameter to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions. The combination of parameters was also evaluated for the possibility of increasing the overall diagnostic accuracy. Biological nature of the lesions was verified by a pathologist. Benign lesions without histopathological verification (BI-RADS 3) were followed up for at least 24 months.
RESULTS
Out of 230 lesions, 146 (64%) were benign, 67 (29%) were malignant, 17 (7%) lesions were eliminated. Malignant tumors showed statistically significantly lower TTP parameters (sensitivity 77.6%, specificity 52.7%) and higher WIS values (sensitivity 74.6%, specificity 66.4%) than benign tumors. Enhancement degree also proved to be statistically well discriminating as 55.2% of malignant lesions had a rich vascularity (sensitivity 89.6% and specificity 48.6%). The combination of quantitative analysis parameters (TTP, WIS) with enhancement degree did not result in higher accuracy in distinguishing between malignant and benign breast lesions.
CONCLUSIONS
We have demonstrated that contrast-enhanced breast ultrasound has the potential to distinguish between malignant and benign lesions. In particular, this method could help to differentiate lesions BI-RADS category 3 and 4 and thus reduce the number of core-cut biopsies performed in benign lesions. Qualitative analysis, despite its subjective element, appeared to be more beneficial. A combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis did not increase the predictive capability of CEUS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32552678
doi: 10.1186/s12880-020-00467-2
pii: 10.1186/s12880-020-00467-2
pmc: PMC7302394
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
66Subventions
Organisme : Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
ID : MMCI 00209805
Pays : International
Organisme : Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
ID : MMCI 00209805
Pays : International
Références
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Dec;81(12):3890-9
pubmed: 23062280
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Apr;81(4):e444-50
pubmed: 21612882
J Ultrasound Med. 2007 Jun;26(6):807-15
pubmed: 17526612
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Nov;7(22):647
pubmed: 31930048
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 May 15;11(10):3647-53
pubmed: 15897560
Nature. 2005 Dec 15;438(7070):932-6
pubmed: 16355210
Eur J Radiol. 2010 Feb;73(2):288-93
pubmed: 19559551
Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Aug 15;9(9):3369-75
pubmed: 12960124
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020;74(4):463-473
pubmed: 31868661
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014 Jan;40(1):11-7
pubmed: 24207087
J Ultrasound Med. 2007 Jun;26(6):757-62
pubmed: 17526607
J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Sep;38(9):2259-2273
pubmed: 30597640
Invest Radiol. 2019 May;54(5):257-264
pubmed: 30632985
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;72(3):293-303
pubmed: 30856103
Klin Onkol. 2012;25(3):188-98
pubmed: 22724568
J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Jun;27(6):821-31
pubmed: 18499842
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jul;83(7):1098-1105
pubmed: 24794865
Clin Breast Cancer. 2003 Dec;4(5):340-7
pubmed: 14715109
Ultraschall Med. 2007 Feb;28(1):57-62
pubmed: 17304413
N Engl J Med. 1971 Nov 18;285(21):1182-6
pubmed: 4938153
Eur Radiol. 2013 Dec;23(12):3228-36
pubmed: 23821023
Cancer Manag Res. 2019 Mar 15;11:2163-2170
pubmed: 30936748