Incorporation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis for breast lesions with inconsistent results on mammography and conventional ultrasound
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June 5, 2020
Incorporation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis for breast lesions with inconsistent results on mammography and conventional ultrasound
To identify the efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in re-evaluating masses with inconsistent Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) on mammography (MG) and conventional ultrasound (US).
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A total of 637 breast lesions were evaluated with MG, US, and CEUS within 6 months and assessed as BI-RADS MG and US. CEUS was used as an additional screening to rerate BI-RADS US according to a five-point system. Lesions were divided into consistent or inconsistent group on the basis of BI-RADS MG and US assessment. The performance of MG, US, and CEUS in the overall and inconsistent group as well as the clinicopathological differences between consistent and inconsistent group were compared using Z test, Mann–Whitney U test, and t-test.
RESULTS:
The respective AUCs of MG and US were 0.742, 0.843 for overall group and 0.412, 0.789 for inconsistent group. The corresponding values of rerated CEUS BI-RADS were 0.958 and 0.950, which were significantly prior to those of MG and US (p < 0.001). Younger age, negative lymph node status, and dense breast were significantly associated with inconsistent group.
CONCLUSION:
Incorporation of CEUS to re-evaluate lesions can improve the diagnostic efficacy comparing to MG or US alone especially when disagreement occurred.
BrayF, FerlayJ, SoerjomataramI, SiegelRL, TorreLA, JemalA. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Ca Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.
2.
HarbeckN, GnantM. Breast cancer. Lancet. 2017;389(10074):1134–50.
3.
LeeSH, YiA, JangMJ, ChangJM, ChoN, MoonWK. Supplemental screening breast US in women with negative mammographic findings: Effect of routine axillary scanning. Radiology. 2018;286(3):830–7.
4.
HooleyRJ, GreenbergKL, StackhouseRM, GeiselJL, ButlerRS, PhilpottsLE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59–69.
5.
SpragueBL, StoutNK, SchechterC, van RavesteynNT, CevikM, AlagozO, et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):157–66.
6.
McCormackVA, dos Santos SilvaI. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(6):1159–69.
7.
KEM, JS. Role of breast density measurement in screening for breast cancer. Climacteric. 2018;21(3):214–20.
8.
LiJ, ZhangBN, FanJH, PangY, ZhangP, WangSL, et al. A nation-wide multicenter 10-year (1999-2008) retrospective clinical epidemiological study of female breast cancer in China. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:364.
9.
ParkB, ChoHM, LeeEH, SongS, SuhM, ChoiKS, et al. Does breast density measured through population-based screening independently increase breast cancer risk in Asian females?Clin Epidemiol. 2018;10:61–70.
10.
ShenS, ZhouY, XuY, ZhangB, DuanX, HuangR, et al. A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(6):998–1004.
11.
StomperPC, D’SouzaDJ, DiNittoPA, ArredondoMA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentegnol. 1996;167(5):1261–5.
12.
NothackerM, DudaV, HahnM, WarmM, DegenhardtF, MadjarH, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: Benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2009;9(1):335.
13.
KuhlCK, StrobelK, BielingH, LeutnerC, SchildHH, SchradingS. Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2017;283(2):361–70.
14.
XiaoX, OuB, YangH, WuH, LuoB. Breast contrast-enhanced ultrasound: Is a scoring system feasible? A preliminary study in China. PloS One. 2014;9(8):e105517.
15.
XiaoX, DongL, JiangQ, GuanX, WuH, LuoB. Incorporating contrast-enhanced ultrasound into the BI-RADS scoring system improves accuracy in breast tumor diagnosis: A preliminary study in China. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(11):2630–8.
16.
DuYR, WuY, ChenM, GuXG. Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of small breast lesions. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;70(3):291–300.
17.
HoffmanFA, RheinsteinPH, HounF. The mammography quality standards act of 1992. Am Fam Physician. 1994;49(8):1965–70.
18.
PaqueletJR. Medicare mammography and the mammography quality standards act of 1992. Radiology. 1994;190(3):47a–9a.
19.
AIUM practice guideline for the performance of a breast ultrasound examination. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(1):105–9.
20.
LiuH, JiangY, DaiQ, ZhuQ, WangL, ZhangJ, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant sub-1-cm breast lesions using contrast-enhanced sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34(1):117–23.
21.
XiaoX, JiangQ, WuH, GuanX, QinW, LuoB. Diagnosis of sub-centimetre breast lesions: Combining BI-RADS-US with strain elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound-a preliminary study in China. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(6):2443–50.
22.
WilczekB, WilczekHE, RasouliyanL, LeiflandK. Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: Report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(9):1554–63.
23.
QuanJ, HongY, ZhangX, MeiM, YouX, HuangP. The clinical role of contrast enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 breast disease. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;72(3):293–303.
24.
KapetasP, ClauserP, WoitekR, WengertGJ, LazarM, PinkerK, et al. Quantitative multiparametric breast ultrasound: Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography leads to an improved differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. Invest Radiol. 2019;54(5):257–64.
25.
LinM, LiuJ, GuoF, WeiL, ZhuS. Granulomatous mastitis: Presentation, treatment, and outcome. Am Surg. 2014;80(3):E82–3.
26.
LiuH, JiangYX, LiuJB, ZhuQL, SunQ, ChangXY. Contrast-enhanced breast ultrasonography: Imaging features with histopathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(7):911–20.
27.
WeidnerN, SempleJP, WelchWR, FolkmanJ. Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis–correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(1):1–8.
28.
ZhaoLX, LiuH, WeiQ, XuG, WuJ, XuHX, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography features of breast malignancies with different sizes: Correlation with prognostic factors. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:613831.
29.
WandersJO, HollandK, VeldhuisWB, MannRM, PijnappelRM, PeetersPH, et al. Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;162(1):95–103.
30.
BergWA. Current status of supplemental screening in dense breasts. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(16):1840–3.
31.
LavenJSE, VisserJA, UitterlindenAG, VermeijWP, HoeijmakersJHJ. Menopause: Genome stability as new paradigm. Maturitas. 2016;92:15–23.
32.
GrayKE, SchiffMA, FitzpatrickAL, KimuraM, AvivA, StarrJR. Leukocyte telomere length and age at menopause. Epidemiology. 2014;25(1):139–46.
