PURPOSE: To evaluate the dynamics of contrast enhancement in solid breast lesions at contrast-enhanced MR imaging and power Doppler ultrasonography (US) and to compare the methods to histology and to each other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty breast lesions were prospectively examined with dynamic MR and power Doppler US. Time-signal intensity curves of enhancement were obtained for both methods. The shape of the curve was analyzed to be benign, indeterminate or malignant. The curves were also analyzed quantitatively by calculating the slope of the curve and the area under the curve (both methods), relative enhancement (MR), and time to peak (US). The lesions were divided into malignant lesions, fibroadenomas, and other benign lesions. The results were compared to histology. RESULTS: In the subjective analysis of the MR curve in differentiating between benign and malignant lesions the accuracy was 90%. The MR curve also enabled differentiation between fibroadenomas and malignancies. The accuracy of the US curve was 38%. Quantitatively, statistically significant differences were found using all the MR variables, except between malignancies and fibroadenomas. Using the US variables, no significant difference was found between the groups. CONCLUSION: The dynamics of contrast-enhanced MR were reliable in the differential diagnosis of solid breast lesions, but contrast-enhanced power Doppler US was of limited value.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the dynamics of contrast enhancement in solid breast lesions at contrast-enhanced MR imaging and power Doppler ultrasonography (US) and to compare the methods to histology and to each other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty breast lesions were prospectively examined with dynamic MR and power Doppler US. Time-signal intensity curves of enhancement were obtained for both methods. The shape of the curve was analyzed to be benign, indeterminate or malignant. The curves were also analyzed quantitatively by calculating the slope of the curve and the area under the curve (both methods), relative enhancement (MR), and time to peak (US). The lesions were divided into malignant lesions, fibroadenomas, and other benign lesions. The results were compared to histology. RESULTS: In the subjective analysis of the MR curve in differentiating between benign and malignant lesions the accuracy was 90%. The MR curve also enabled differentiation between fibroadenomas and malignancies. The accuracy of the US curve was 38%. Quantitatively, statistically significant differences were found using all the MR variables, except between malignancies and fibroadenomas. Using the US variables, no significant difference was found between the groups. CONCLUSION: The dynamics of contrast-enhanced MR were reliable in the differential diagnosis of solid breast lesions, but contrast-enhanced power Doppler US was of limited value.