| Literature DB >> 30145602 |
Yi-Cheng Zhu1, Yuan Zhang1, Shu-Hao Deng1, Quan Jiang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study explored the diagnostic value of a combined modality of Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and shear-wave elastography in differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 121 patients with 123 breast lesions enrolled underwent conventional ultrasound exam (US), Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), SMI examination, and Virtual Touch Tissue Quantification (VTQ) measurement between May 2016 and October 2017. Vessels were detected by both CDFI and SMI in a quantitative manner. The stiffness of all the breast tissues was evaluated by VTQ method. We further assessed the diagnostic performances of CDFI, SMI, VTQ, CDFI+VTQ, and SMI+VTQ. RESULTS Both CDFI and SMI exhibited significant differences between malignant and benign masses (p<0.001) in terms of Adler classification. The mean shear-wave velocity (SWV) of malignant neoplasms was 5.28 m/s, with interquartile range (IQR) 4.01-6.39 m/s (p<0.001). The mean SWV of benign lesions was 2.64 m/s, with IQR 2.30-5.01 m/s (p<0.001). No significant difference was found for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for CDFI, SMI, and VTQ (c2=2.29, P=0.3715). The sensitivity was the highest on SMI+VTQ (85.42%) and the lowest on CDFI (58.33%). CDFI+VTQ (85.33%) had a slightly higher specificity than SMI+VTQ (84.00%). The accuracy rate of these 2 modalities remained the same (84.55%). CONCLUSIONS Superb Microvascular Imaging yields more detailed vascular information in the bloodstream in benign and malignant breast masses compared with conventional ultrasonography. VTQ provides standardized quantified results in assessing tissue stiffness. The combined modality of SMI+VTQ added to conventional ultrasonography presented a better diagnostic performance in differentiating malignant breast neoplasms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30145602 PMCID: PMC6122269 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.910399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Evaluation of blood build-up in a lesion of the right breast with CDFI (A) and SMI (B) in a 34-year-old female. According to Adler’s classification, microvascular imaging was rated as Grade 0 with CDFI and Grade 1 with SMI. At VTQ examination, the SWV of the adjacent breast tissue (C) was 2.26 m/s while the SWV of the mass (D) revealed 2.73 m/s. The lesion was classified as US BI-RADS category 4a and pathologically proved as fibroadenoma.
Figure 2Evaluation of blood build-up in a lesion of the right breast with CDFI (A) and SMI (B) in a 59-year-old female. According to Adler’s classification, microvascular imaging was rated as Grade 0 with CDFI and Grade 2 with SMI. At VTQ examination, the SWV of the surrounding breast tissue (C) was 4.12 m/s while the SWV of the mass (D) displayed X.XX m/s. The lesion was classified as US BI-RADS category 4b and pathologically proved as invasive ductal carcinoma.
Pathologic diagnosis.
| Malignant masses | No (%) | Benign masses | No (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasive ductal carcinomas | 40 (83.34%) | Mammary adenosis | 12 (16.00%) |
| Ductal carcinoma | 4 (8.34%) | Fibroadenomas | 49 (65.34%) |
| Solid papillary carcinoma | 2 (4.17%) | Complex sclerosing lesion | 2 (2.67%) |
| Intraductal papillary carcinoma | 1 (2.08%) | Inflammation | 10 (13.34%) |
| Invasive micropapillary carcinoma | 1 (2.08%) | Intraductal papilloma | 1 (1.34%) |
| Mastitis | 1 (1.34%) |
Conventional ultrasonic features and BI-RADS stratification.
| Characteristic | Overall | Malignant | Benign | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (yrs) | 52.61±7.93 (16–64) | 51.88±7.53 (29–64) | 43.61±8.5 (16–59) | <0.001 |
| Lesion number | 0.748 | |||
| Solitary | 121 (98.4%) | 47 (97.9%) | 74 (98.7%) | |
| Multiple | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (2.1%) | 1 (1.3%) | |
| Lesion position | 0.523 | |||
| Right | 52 (42.3%) | 22 (45.8%) | 30 (40.0%) | |
| Left | 71 (57.7%) | 26 (54.2%) | 45 (60.0%) | |
| Diameter (mm) | 18.71±14.81 | 22.5±18.8 | 16.3±11.1 | <0.001 |
| Maximum depth (mm) | 26.4±11.2 | 28.1±11.6 | 25.3±10.8 | <0.001 |
| Shape | <0.001 | |||
| Oval/Round | 59 (48.0%) | 10 (20.8%) | 49 (65.3%) | |
| Irregular | 64 (52.0%) | 38 (79.2%) | 26 (40.6%) | |
| Orientation | <0.001 | |||
| Parallel | 90 (73.2%) | 26 (54.2%) | 64 (85.3%) | |
| Non-parallel | 33 (26.8%) | 22 (45.8%) | 11 (14.7%) | |
| Margin | <0.001 | |||
| Circumscribed | 21 (17.1%) | 2 (4.2%) | 19 (25.3%) | |
| Indistinct | 28 (22.8%) | 2 (4.2%) | 26 (34.7%) | |
| Angular | 9 (7.3%) | 4 (8.3%) | 5 (6.7%) | |
| Microlobulated | 56 (45.5%) | 31 (64.6%) | 25 (33.3%) | |
| Spiculated | 9 (7.3%) | 9 (18.8%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Posterior acoustic feature | <0.001 | |||
| Enhancement | 15 (12.2%) | 9 (18.8%) | 6 (8.0%) | |
| Shadowing | 31 (25.2%) | 19 (39.6%) | 12 (16.0%) | |
| Combined pattern | 11 (8.9%) | 11 (22.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| No posterior acoustic features | 66 (53.7%) | 9 (18.8%) | 57 (76.0%) | |
| Echo pattern | <0.001 | |||
| Hypoechoic | 79 (64.2%) | 25 (52.1%) | 54 (72.0%) | |
| Hyperechoic | 6 (4.9%) | 6 (12.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Isoechoic | 20 (16.3%) | 4 (8.3%) | 16 (21.3%) | |
| Complex | 18 (14.6%) | 13 (27.1%) | 5 (6.7%) | |
| BI-RADS | <0.001 | |||
| 3 | 43 (40.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 43 (57.8%) | |
| 4a | 12 (9.8%) | 1 (2.4%) | 11 (14.8%) | |
| 4b | 23 (18.7%) | 6 (12.2%) | 17 (22.7%) | |
| 4c | 26 (21.1%) | 22 (45.1%) | 4 (4.7%) | |
| 5 | 19 (15.4%) | 19 (40.2%) | 0 (0.0%) |
The degree of vascularity according to Adler classification, [n (%)].
| Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDFI | Malignant | 2 (4.17) | 8 (16.67) | 10 (20.83) | 28 (58.33) | 4.76 | <0.001 |
| Benign | 25 (33.33) | 18 (24.00) | 16 (21.33) | 16 (21.33) | |||
| SMI | Malignant | 1 (2.08) | 3 (6.25) | 5 (10.42) | 39 (81.25) | 5.51 | <0.001 |
| Benign | 14 (18.67) | 13 (17.33) | 27 (36.00) | 21 (28.00) |
Descriptions and comparisons of SWVs in malignant and benign lesions.
| Q50 (Q25~Q75) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| SWV (Min) | SWV (Mean) | SWV (Max) | |
| Malignant | 4.53 (3.40~5.59) | 5.28 (4.01~6.39) | 6.03 (4.57~7.19) |
| Benign | 2.47 (2.13~4.76) | 2.64 (2.30~5.01) | 2.79 (2.49~5.34) |
| 3.42 | 3.66 | 3.82 | |
| 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
Figure 3Boxplot of SWV values for malignant and benign breast lesions.
Diagnostic performances of five modalities.
| Cut-off | Sensitivity | Specificity | Correct rate | AUC | 95%CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VTQ | ≥3.76 | 79.17% | 66.67% | 71.54% | 0.6962 | 0.6021~0.7904 | 14.50 | <0.001 |
| CDFI | ≥3 | 58.33% | 78.67% | 70.73% | 0.7453 | 0.6623~0.8283 | 17.60 | <0.001 |
| SMI | ≥3 | 81.25% | 72.00% | 75.61% | 0.7740 | 0.6974~0.8506 | 19.80 | <0.001 |
| CDFI+VTQ | P(ϖ) ≥0.4815 | 83.33% | 85.33% | 84.55% | 0.8633 | 0.7946~0.9320 | 24.63 | <0.001 |
| SMI+VTQ | P(ϖ) ≥0.4200 | 85.42% | 84.00% | 84.55% | 0.8969 | 0.8374~0.9565 | 29.53 | <0.001 |
Figure 4ROCs and AUCs for 5 diagnostic modalities.