Top

Published in:

01-06-2010 | Contrast Media

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

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2010

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the reliability of contrast-enhanced ultrasound quantitative analysis (CE-US) in characterizing breast lesions, in comparison with MRI.

Materials

Thirty-nine patients with breast lesions BI-RADS 3–5 at US or mammography underwent CE-US and MRI. All lesions underwent histological and quantitative enhancement evaluation with both imaging methods. B-mode US, colour/power Doppler US and CE-US were used; an amplitude and phase modulation technique (CPS) read the signals produced by microbubbles and dedicated software produced the following parameters on time/intensity (T/I) curves: peak %, time to peak (TTP), mean transit time (MTT), regional blood volume (RBV) and regional blood flow (RBF). Student’s t test was used to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of CE-US parameters compared with histological results. MRI (1.5 T) was performed before and after bolus gadolinium enhancement. Time/intensity curves were generated for all nodules and Fischer’s multimodal score was used to classify them.

Results

Pathology showed 43 nodules (11 benign; 32 malignant). Peak and RBF were the most significant parameters in differential diagnosis, with p values of 0.02 and 0.004, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) of CE-US evaluation was 91%, negative predictive value (NPV) was 73% with a high concordance index (k = 0.59) with MRI.

Conclusions

CE-US quantitative analysis offers an objective and reproducible assessment of lesion vascularisation, with good correlation with the results of MRI.

Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Isselbacher KJ et al (1999) Harrison: principles of internal medicine, vol 1, 14th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

Crystal P, Strano S, Shcharynski S et al (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182

Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942CrossRefPubMed

Özdemir A, Özdemir H, Maral I et al (2001) Differential diagnosis of solid breast lesions. Contribution of doppler studies to mammography and gray scale imaging. J Ultrasound Med 20:1091–1101PubMed

Italian Society of Medical Radiology (2004) Charta senologica. Diagnostic approach to breast diseases. Radiol Med 108:569–587

Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M (2006) Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 111:440–448CrossRefPubMed

Bonadonna G, Robustelli della Cuna G (1999) Medicina oncologica, 6th edn. Masson, Milan

Passariello R, Simonetti G (2000) Compendio di radiologia. Idelson-Gnocchi, Naples

Chapellier C, Balu-Maestro C, Bleuse A et al (2000) Ultrasonography of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Sonographic patterns and diagnostic value. Report of 102 cases. J Clin Imaging 24:333–336CrossRef

10.

Hylton N et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management. J Clin Oncol 23:1678–1684CrossRefPubMed

11.

Folkman J, Klagsbrun M (1987) Angiogenetic factors. Science 235:442–447CrossRefPubMed

12.

Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich, Grabbe E (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1087–1092

13.

Orel S (1999) Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identified at MR imaging of the breast: are time–signal intensity curves an accurate predictor? Radiology 211:5–7PubMed

14.

EFSUMB Study Group (2004) Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 25:249–256CrossRef

15.

Quaia E, Stacul F, Gaiani S et al (2004) Comparison of diagnostic performance of unenhanced vs SonoVue - enhanced ultrasonography in focal liver lesions characterization. The experience of three Italian centers. Radiol Med 108:71–81PubMed

16.

Guazzaroni M, Cossu E, Danese V et al (1998) Use of SHU 508 A Levovist contrast media in the characterization of solid lesions of the breast. Radiol Med 96:35–41PubMed

17.

Caruso G, Ienzi R, Cirino A et al (2002) Breast lesion characterization with contrast-enhanced US. Work in progress. Radiol Med 104:443–450PubMed

18.

Ricci P, Cantisani V, Ballesio L et al (2007) Benign and malignant breast lesions: efficacy of real time contrast-enhanced ultrasound vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultraschall Med 28:57–62CrossRefPubMed

19.

Clevert DA, Jung EM, Jungius KP et al (2007) Value of tissue harmonic imaging (THI) and contrast harmonic imaging (CHI) in detection and characterization of breast tumours. Eur Radiol 17:1–10CrossRefPubMed

20.

Alamo L, Fischer U (2001) Contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound characteristics in hypervascular breast tumors: comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 11:970–977CrossRefPubMed

21.

Schröder RJ, Bostanjoglo M, Rademaker J et al (2003) Role of power Doppler techniques and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the differential diagnosis of focal breast lesions. Eur Radiol 13:68–79

22.

Schröder RJ, Bostanjoglo M, Hidajat N et al (2002) Analysis of vascularity in breast tumors: comparison of high frequency ultrasound and contrast-enhanced color harmonic imaging. Rofo 174:1132–1141PubMed

23.

American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). ACR, Reston

24.

Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Review. Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8(6)

25.

Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S et al (1996) Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 200:639–649PubMed

26.

Greis C (2004) Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol Suppl 14:P11–P15CrossRef

27.

Kettenbach J, Helbich T, Huber S et al (2005) Computer-assisted quantitative assessment of power Doppler US: effects of microbubble contrast agent in the differentiation of breast tumors. Eur J Radiol 53:238–244CrossRefPubMed

28.

Yang WT, Metreweli C, Lam PKW et al (2001) Benign and malignant breast masses and axillary nodes: evaluation with echo-enhanced color power doppler US. Radiology 220:795–802CrossRefPubMed

29.

Stuhrmann M, Aronius R, Schietzel M (2000) Tumor vascularity of breast lesions: potentials and limits of contrast-enhanced doppler sonography. Am J Roentgenol 175:1585–1589

30.

Reinikainen H, Pääkkö E, Suramo I et al (2002) Dynamics of contrast enhancement in MR imaging and power doppler ultrasonography of solid breast lesions. Acta Radiol 43:492–500CrossRefPubMed

31.

Huber S, Helbich T, Kettenbach J et al (1998) Effect of a microbubble contrast agent on breast tumors: computer-assisted quantitative assessment with color doppler US—early experience. Radiology 208:485–489PubMed

32.

Kedar RP, Cosgrove D, McCready VR et al (1996) Microbubble contrast agent for color Doppler US: effect on breast masses—work in progress. Radiology 198:679–686PubMed

33.

Reinikainen H, Rissanen T, Päivänsalo M et al (2001) B-mode, power Doppler and contrast-enhanced power Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast tumors. Acta Radiol 42:106–113CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kook SH, Kwang HJ (2003) Value of contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography using a microbubble echo-enhancing agent in evaluation of small breast lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 31:227–238CrossRefPubMed

35.

Fischer U (2004) Practical MR mammography. Thieme, Stuttgart

36.

Caumo F, Carbognin G, Casarin A et al (2006) Angiosonography in suspicious breast lesions with non-diagnostic FNAC: comparison with power Doppler US. Radiol Med 111:61–72CrossRefPubMed

Title: 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
Publication date: 01-06-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 6/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1690-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objective

Materials

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2010

Systolic acquisition of coronary dual-source computed tomography angiography: feasibility in an unselected patient population

Assessment of vascular invasion by bone and soft tissue tumours of the limbs: usefulness of MDCT angiography

Evaluation of renal allograft function early after transplantation with diffusion-weighted MR imaging

Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences

Improved detection of pulmonary nodules on energy-subtracted chest radiographs with a commercial computer-aided diagnosis software: comparison with human observers

A patient with swelling of the eyelid (2010: 6a)