Literature DB >> 12767017

Value of contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography using a microbubble echo-enhancing agent in evaluation of small breast lesions.

Shin-Ho Kook1, Hyon-Joo Kwag.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography (PDUS) using a microbubble echo-enhancing agent in differentiating between malignant and benign small breast lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1, 2000, and September 30, 2001, we performed gray-scale sonographic examination of patients in whom diagnostic sonography or screening mammography had revealed solid breast lesions measuring less than 2 cm in the largest dimension. The patients were then examined on PDUS before and after injection of a microbubble contrast agent. The sonographic findings for all 3 techniques, as well as the morphologic features of the Doppler signals for each patient before and after injection of the contrast agent on PDUS, were independently assessed. Each lesion was classified as "benign" or "malignant" on the basis of specific criteria for sonographic interpretation. A hemodynamic study was performed in which time-transit profiles of the Doppler signals on contrast-enhanced PDUS were generated using a computer-assisted program, and the results for each patient were compared with the findings of a histopathologic examination of surgical specimens.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (35 women and 1 man) with a mean age of 43.5 years (range, 18-69 years) were evaluated. The tumors ranged from 4 to 19 mm in the largest dimension. Histopathologic examination revealed that 19 tumors were benign and 17 were malignant. For morphologic diagnosis of the malignant lesions, the sensitivity of gray-scale sonography was 100%, compared with 29% for PDUS without contrast enhancement. The specificity of gray-scale sonography was 47%, compared with 74% for PDUS without contrast enhancement. Contrast-enhanced PDUS had a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 58%. The diagnostic accuracy was 72% for gray-scale sonography, 53% for PDUS without contrast enhancement, and 64% for contrast-enhanced PDUS. The time-transit profiles of the hemodynamic study did not reveal a statistically significant difference in the accuracy rates of contrast-enhanced PDUS between benign and malignant breast lesions.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PDUS without contrast enhancement, contrast-enhanced PDUS provides better visualization of the morphology of vascular Doppler signals that is characteristic of malignancy and therefore has a higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy, albeit a lower specificity. In differentiating between benign and malignant small breast lesions, contrast-enhanced PDUS can be helpful when used with gray-scale sonography and PDUS without contrast enhancement. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12767017     DOI: 10.1002/jcu.10172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound        ISSN: 0091-2751            Impact factor:   0.910


  10 in total

Review 1.  [Imaging of molecular structures of breasts with new sonography techniques].

Authors:  M Reisegger; G Schueller; R Gruber; K Pinker; C Riedl; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Study of neurinomas with ultrasound contrast media: review of a case series to identify characteristic imaging patterns.

Authors:  A De Marchi; S Pozza; R Sutera; E M Brach del Prever; M Petraz; C Sena; A Linari; C Faletti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-03-07       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Predictive model for contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the breast: Is it feasible in malignant risk assessment of breast imaging reporting and data system 4 lesions?

Authors:  Jun Luo; Ji-Dong Chen; Qing Chen; Lin-Xian Yue; Guo Zhou; Cheng Lan; Yi Li; Chi-Hua Wu; Jing-Qiao Lu
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-28

4.  Computed tomography for imaging the breast.

Authors:  John M Boone; Alex L C Kwan; Kai Yang; George W Burkett; Karen K Lindfors; Thomas R Nelson
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.673

5.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI.

Authors:  Natalia Caproni; Francesca Marchisio; Annarita Pecchi; Barbara Canossi; Rachele Battista; Piero D'Alimonte; Pietro Torricelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Breast contrast-enhanced ultrasound: is a scoring system feasible? A preliminary study in China.

Authors:  Xiaoyun Xiao; Bing Ou; Haiyun Yang; Huan Wu; Baoming Luo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Effects of contrast-enhanced ultrasound treatment on neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Anne Rix; Marion Piepenbrock; Barbara Flege; Saskia von Stillfried; Patrick Koczera; Tatjana Opacic; Nina Simons; Peter Boor; Sven Thoröe-Boveleth; Roel Deckers; Jan-Niklas May; Twan Lammers; Georg Schmitz; Elmar Stickeler; Fabian Kiessling
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 11.556

8.  Contrast enhanced ultrasound of breast cancer.

Authors:  E Cassano; S Rizzo; A Bozzini; S Menna; M Bellomi
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2006-01-31       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  Accuracy of contrast-enhanced breast ultrasound for pre-operative tumor size assessment in patients diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.

Authors:  S van Esser; W B Veldhuis; R van Hillegersberg; P J van Diest; G Stapper; M ElOuamari; I H M Borel Rinkes; W P Th M Mali; M A A J van den Bosch
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-05-15       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  CEUS helps to rerate small breast tumors of BI-RADS category 3 and category 4.

Authors:  Jian-xing Zhang; Li-shan Cai; Ling Chen; Jiu-long Dai; Guang-hui Song
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-25       Impact factor: 3.411

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.