Literature DB >> 15908531

The use of unenhanced Doppler sonography in the evaluation of solid breast lesions.

Jose L del Cura1, Elena Elizagaray, Rosa Zabala, Ana Legórburu, Domingo Grande.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were to investigate differences in Doppler sonography features between benign and malignant breast lesions and between malignant lesions with different prognostic factors and to propose diagnostic criteria for Doppler sonography of breast lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We performed power and duplex Doppler sonography examinations in 826 breast lesions scheduled for sonographically guided core needle biopsy. Lesion vascularity, pulsatility index (PI), and resistive index (RI) of the vessels detected were analyzed and correlated with histologic results.
RESULTS: Color flow was more frequently seen in malignant (237/348 lesions, 68%) than in benign (171/478, 36%) lesions (p < 0.001). However, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for this sign were low (68%, 64%, 58%, and 73%, respectively). The RI and PI values were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in cancers. Although an overlap in these values between benign and malignant lesions was observed, all but one nodule with an RI of greater than 0.99 (those with null or inverted diastolic flow) or a PI of greater than 4 were malignant. No significant relationship was found between PI, RI, or flow visualization on power Doppler sonography and tumor grade or lymph node involvement in cancers.
CONCLUSION: Flow visualization on power Doppler sonography indicates a higher possibility of malignancy but is not useful as the main sign for malignancy. However, any lesion with a vessel that has an RI value greater than 0.99 or a PI value greater than 4 within it must be considered as probably malignant regardless of any other sonography sign present. Doppler findings are not useful to predict tumor grade or lymph node involvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15908531     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841788

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  21 in total

Review 1.  A review of breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Chandra M Sehgal; Susan P Weinstein; Peter H Arger; Emily F Conant
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.673

Review 2.  Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.

Authors:  Rongrong Guo; Guolan Lu; Binjie Qin; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Correlation between Blood Flow Signal of Color Flow Imaging and Nottingham Prognostic Index in Patients with Breast Carcinoma.

Authors:  Zhi-Yong Shen; Bing Hu; Ming-Feng Wu
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Factors influencing the performance of a diagnostic model including contrast-enhanced ultrasound in 1023 breast lesions: comparison with histopathology.

Authors:  Yijie Chen; Lina Tang; Zhongshi Du; Zhaoming Zhong; Jun Luo; Lichun Yang; Ruoxia Shen; Yan Cheng; Zizhen Zhang; Ehui Han; Zhihong Lv; Lijun Yuan; Yong Yang; Yinrong Cheng; Lei Yang; Shengli Wang; Baoyan Bai; Qin Chen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-11

5.  Evaluation of different aspects of power Doppler sonography in differentiating and prognostication of breast masses.

Authors:  Mehri Sirous; Reza Sirous; Farnaz Khalighi Nejad; Elham Rabeie; Marzieh Mansouri
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.852

6.  Virtual Touch tissue quantification cannot assess breast cancer lesions except for ductal carcinomas in situ and small invasive cancers: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Keiichiro Tada; Kotoe Nishioka; Yasuko Kikuchi; Takayoshi Niwa; Yasuyuki Seto
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 2.754

7.  Modern breast cancer detection: a technological review.

Authors:  Adam B Nover; Shami Jagtap; Waqas Anjum; Hakki Yegingil; Wan Y Shih; Wei-Heng Shih; Ari D Brooks
Journal:  Int J Biomed Imaging       Date:  2009-12-28

8.  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

Review 9.  Optical imaging for breast cancer prescreening.

Authors:  Anuradha Godavarty; Suset Rodriguez; Young-Jin Jung; Stephanie Gonzalez
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2015-07-20

10.  Can Doppler or contrast-enhanced ultrasound analysis add diagnostically important information about the nature of breast lesions?

Authors:  Daniela Stanzani; Luciano F Chala; Nestor de Barros; Giovanni G Cerri; Maria Cristina Chammas
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.365

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.