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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 17:1931–1942
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 20:1091–1101
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 111:440–448
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 24:333–336
Hylton N et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management. J Clin Oncol 23:1678–1684
Folkman J, Klagsbrun M (1987) Angiogenetic factors. Science 235:442–447
Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich, Grabbe E (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1087–1092
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 211:5–7
EFSUMB Study Group (2004) Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 25:249–256
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 108:71–81
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 96:35–41
Caruso G, Ienzi R, Cirino A et al (2002) Breast lesion characterization with contrast-enhanced US. Work in progress. Radiol Med 104:443–450
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 28:57–62
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 17:1–10
Alamo L, Fischer U (2001) Contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound characteristics in hypervascular breast tumors: comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 11:970–977
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
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 174:1132–1141
American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). ACR, Reston
Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Review. Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8(6)
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 200:639–649
Greis C (2004) Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol Suppl 14:P11–P15
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 53:238–244
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 220:795–802
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
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 43:492–500
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 208:485–489
Kedar RP, Cosgrove D, McCready VR et al (1996) Microbubble contrast agent for color Doppler US: effect on breast masses—work in progress. Radiology 198:679–686
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 42:106–113
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 31:227–238
Fischer U (2004) Practical MR mammography. Thieme, Stuttgart
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 111:61–72
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caproni, N., Marchisio, F., Pecchi, A. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 20, 1384–1395 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1690-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1690-1