Literature DB >> 32463295

Does contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) play a better role in diagnosis of breast lesions with calcification? A comparison with MRI.

Jiamin Pan1, Wenjuan Tong1, Jia Luo1, Jinyu Liang1, Fushun Pan1, Yanling Zheng1, Xiaoyan Xie1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound enabled reclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (CEUS-BI-RADS) with MRI in the diagnosis of breast lesions with calcification.
METHODS: A total of 52 breast lesions with calcification from 51 patients were detected by ultrasound as hyperechoic foci and categorized as BI-RADS 3-5. The 51 patients further underwent CEUS scan and MRI. The ultrasound-BI-RADS combined with CEUS 5-point score system redefined the classification of BI-RADS which was called CEUS-BI-RADS. The diagnostic efficacy of three methods was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Histopathological assessment used as the gold-standard.
RESULTS: The sensitivities of Ultrasound-BI-RADS, MRI classification of BI-RADS (MRI-BI-RADS) and CEUS-BI-RADS were 85%, 90% and 95% without significant difference among the three modalities (p > 0.05). The diagnostic specificities of ultrasound-BI-RADS, MRI-BI-RADS and CEUS-BI-RADS were 78.1%, 78.1% and 96.8%, respectively (p < 0.05); and the accuracy were 80.7%, 82.6% and 96.1% for ultrasound-BI-RADS, MRI-BI-RADS and CEUS-BI-RADS, respectively (p < 0.05). The area under ROC (AUROC) in differentiation of breast lesions with calcification was 0.945 for CEUS-BI-RADS, 0.907 for MRI-BI-RADS and 0.853 for ultrasound-BI-RADS, with no significant difference among the three modalities (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The CEUS-BI-RADS has a better diagnostic efficiency than MRI-BI-RADS in the differentiation of the breast lesions with calcification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: •CEUS is a better method in differentiation of breast lesions with calcification.•CEUS-BI-RADS increases the efficiency of diagnosis compared to MRI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32463295      PMCID: PMC7446019          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20200195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  26 in total

Review 1.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination of the breast: a literature review.

Authors:  F M Drudi; V Cantisani; M Gnecchi; F Malpassini; N Di Leo; C de Felice
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 6.548

2.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.

Authors:  Andrea S Hong; Eric L Rosen; Mary S Soo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast lesions: combined utility of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Jing Du; Lin Wang; Cai-Feng Wan; Jia Hua; Hua Fang; Jie Chen; Feng-Hua Li
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2012-10-11       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Breast microcalcifications: the lesions in anatomical pathology.

Authors:  P Henrot; A Leroux; C Barlier; P Génin
Journal:  Diagn Interv Imaging       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 4.026

5.  Computer-assisted quantitative assessment of power Doppler US: effects of microbubble contrast agent in the differentiation of breast tumors.

Authors:  Joachim Kettenbach; Thomas H Helbich; Sabine Huber; Ivan Zuna; Wolfgang Dock
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis--correlation in invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  N Weidner; J P Semple; W R Welch; J Folkman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-01-03       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  [Ultrasound in oncology: screening and staging].

Authors:  S Delorme
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.743

8.  Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Melissa Joo-Young Lee; Jennifer B Kaplan; Linda R LaTrenta; Jennifer H Menell; Andrea F Abramson; Stephen M Dashnaw; Douglas J Ballon; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Radiological, Histological and Chemical Analysis of Breast Microcalcifications: Diagnostic Value and Biological Significance.

Authors:  Rita Bonfiglio; Manuel Scimeca; Nicola Toschi; Chiara Adriana Pistolese; Elena Giannini; Chiara Antonacci; Sara Ciuffa; Virginia Tancredi; Umberto Tarantino; Loredana Albonici; Elena Bonanno
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.673

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.