Yong-Mei Wang1, Wei Fan2, Kai Zhang1, Li Zhang3, Zhen Tan4, Rong Ma1. 1. 1 Department of Breast Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. 2. 2 Department of Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. 3. 3 Department of Health Care Ultrasound, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. 4. 4 Department of Health Science Technology and Management, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of different transducers in breast contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using SonoVue(®) (Bracco, Plan-Les-Ouates, Switzerland) as the contrast agent. METHODS: Breast CEUS was performed in 51 patients with 51 breast lesions using a low-frequency transducer (probe C5-1) and a high-frequency transducer (probe L12-5) separately. All image processes were reviewed for the presence of local blood perfusion defects and surrounding vessels. McNemar's test was conducted to compare the detection effectiveness between these two transducers. RESULTS: Pathological results revealed 38 malignant and 13 benign lesions. The two transducers showed no difference in detecting benign lesions. Among malignant lesions, CEUS conducted by probe C5-1 (frequency range from 1 to 5 MHz) presented 23 (60.5%) lesions with local blood perfusion defects and 26 (68.4%) lesions with surrounding vessels. Meanwhile, probe L12-5 (frequency range from 5 to 12 MHz) showed only 12 (31.6%) lesions with local blood perfusion defects and 12 (31.6%) lesions with surrounding vessel. Probe C5-1 was more sensitive than probe L12-5 in detecting malignant CEUS characteristics (p-value < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The low-frequency transducer was more sensitive than the high-frequency transducer in breast CEUS using SonoVue as the contrast agent. A new contrast agent with a higher resonance frequency, specially designed for high-frequency transducers, may be helpful in improving the clinical value of breast CEUS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The first study comparing different frequency transducers in breast CEUS of the same patient lesions. We brought out the requirement for CEUS contrast agents which are more suitable for high-frequency examinations.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of different transducers in breast contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using SonoVue(®) (Bracco, Plan-Les-Ouates, Switzerland) as the contrast agent. METHODS: Breast CEUS was performed in 51 patients with 51 breast lesions using a low-frequency transducer (probe C5-1) and a high-frequency transducer (probe L12-5) separately. All image processes were reviewed for the presence of local blood perfusion defects and surrounding vessels. McNemar's test was conducted to compare the detection effectiveness between these two transducers. RESULTS: Pathological results revealed 38 malignant and 13 benign lesions. The two transducers showed no difference in detecting benign lesions. Among malignant lesions, CEUS conducted by probe C5-1 (frequency range from 1 to 5 MHz) presented 23 (60.5%) lesions with local blood perfusion defects and 26 (68.4%) lesions with surrounding vessels. Meanwhile, probe L12-5 (frequency range from 5 to 12 MHz) showed only 12 (31.6%) lesions with local blood perfusion defects and 12 (31.6%) lesions with surrounding vessel. Probe C5-1 was more sensitive than probe L12-5 in detecting malignant CEUS characteristics (p-value < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The low-frequency transducer was more sensitive than the high-frequency transducer in breast CEUS using SonoVue as the contrast agent. A new contrast agent with a higher resonance frequency, specially designed for high-frequency transducers, may be helpful in improving the clinical value of breast CEUS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The first study comparing different frequency transducers in breast CEUS of the same patient lesions. We brought out the requirement for CEUS contrast agents which are more suitable for high-frequency examinations.
Authors: F Piscaglia; C Nolsøe; C F Dietrich; D O Cosgrove; O H Gilja; M Bachmann Nielsen; T Albrecht; L Barozzi; M Bertolotto; O Catalano; M Claudon; D A Clevert; J M Correas; M D'Onofrio; F M Drudi; J Eyding; M Giovannini; M Hocke; A Ignee; E M Jung; A S Klauser; N Lassau; E Leen; G Mathis; A Saftoiu; G Seidel; P S Sidhu; G ter Haar; D Timmerman; H P Weskott Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Michel Claudon; Christoph F Dietrich; Byung Ihn Choi; David O Cosgrove; Masatoshi Kudo; Christian P Nolsøe; Fabio Piscaglia; Stephanie R Wilson; Richard G Barr; Maria C Chammas; Nitin G Chaubal; Min-Hua Chen; Dirk Andre Clevert; Jean Michel Correas; Hong Ding; Flemming Forsberg; J Brian Fowlkes; Robert N Gibson; Barry B Goldberg; Nathalie Lassau; Edward L S Leen; Robert F Mattrey; Fuminori Moriyasu; Luigi Solbiati; Hans-Peter Weskott; Hui-Xiong Xu Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: M Westwood; M Joore; J Grutters; K Redekop; N Armstrong; K Lee; V Gloy; H Raatz; K Misso; J Severens; J Kleijnen Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Bilgin Osmanodja; Frédéric Muench; Alexander Holderied; Klemens Budde; Thomas Fischer; Markus Herbert Lerchbaumer Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.964