To assess the value of conventional ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and mammography in the diagnosis of breast lesions with calcifications.
METHODS:
A total of 87 breast lesions with calcification were subjected to US, CEUS and mammography and divided into 3 groups: Group A (all cases), Group A1 (31 cases who underwent US and CEUS first followed by mammography), and Group A2 (56 cases who underwent mammography first followed by US and CEUS). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of different methods in different groups.
RESULTS:
In Group A, the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of CEUS were 0.937, which were significantly higher than that of mammography (p < 0.05). In Group A1, the AUROC of CEUS were 0.842, which were not significantly different from that of US and mammography (p > 0.05). In Group A2, the AUROC of CEUS were 0.987, which were significantly higher than that of mammography and US (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION:
Based on the mammography results, the combination of US and CEUS might improve the diagnostic efficacy in breast lesions with calcification.
SiegelRL, MillerKD, JemalA. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29.
2.
HollandR, HendriksJH, VebeekAL, et alExtent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 2015;335(8688):519–22.
3.
KimSY, KimHY, KimEK, et alEvaluation of malignancy risk stratification of microcalcifications detected on mammography: a study based on the 5th edition of BI-RADS. Ann Surg Onco. 2015;22(9):2895–901.
4.
SicklesEA. Breast calcifications: mammographic evaluation. Radiology. 1986;160(2):289–93.
5.
BerryDA, CroninKA, PlevritisSK,et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784–92.
6.
TabarL, VitakB, ChenTH,et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):658–63.
7.
del CarmenMG, HughesKS, HalpernE,et al. Racial differences in mammographic breast density. Cancer. 2003;98(3):590–6.
8.
KolbTM, LichyJ, NewhouseJH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225(1):165–75.
9.
GrigoryevM, ThomasA, PlathL,et al. Detection of microcalcifications in women with dense breasts and hypoechoic focal lesions: comparison of mammography and ultrasound. Ultraschall Med. 2014;35(6):554–60.
10.
FischerT, GrigoryevM, BossenzS,et al. Sonographic detection of microcalcifications - potential of new method. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(4):357–65.
11.
BadeaR, CiobanuL. Contrast enhanced and Doppler ultrasonography in the characterization of the microcirculation. Expectancies and performances. Med Ultrason. 2012;14(4):307–17.
12.
WanCF, DuJ, FangH,et al. Enhancement patterns and parameters of breast cancers at contrast-enhanced US: correlation with prognostic factors. Radiology. 2012;262(2):450–9.
13.
XiaoX, JiangQ, WuH,et al. 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.
14.
HuQ, WangXY, ZhuSY,et al. Meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 2015;56(1):25–33.
15.
ZhaoJ, ZhangJ, ZhuQL,et al. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for sentinel lymph node identification and characterisation in pre-operative breast cancer patients: A prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(4):1654–61.
16.
HuW, DongY, ZhangX,et al The clinical value of Arrival-time. Parametric Imaging using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020. Apr 6. doi:10.3233/CH-200826.
17.
LengX, HuangG, MaF, YaoL. Regional Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography (CEUS) Characteristics of Breast Cancer and Correlation with Microvessel Density (MVD). Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:3428–36.
18.
WeidnerN, SempleJP, WelchWR, FolkmanJ. Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis–correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(1):1–8.
19.
YoonSH, LeeKH, KimSY,et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided biopsy of focal hepatic lesions not localised on B-mode ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(8):2047–56.
20.
HuangDY, YusufGT, DaneshiM,et al. Contrast-enhanced US-guided Interventions: Improving Success Rate and Avoiding Complications Using US Contrast Agents. Radiographics. 2017;37(2):652–64.
21.
ZhangJX, CaiLS, ChenL,et al. CEUS helps to rerate small breast tumors of BI-RADS category 3 and category 4. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:572532.
22.
DuJ, WangL, WanCF,et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast lesions: combined utility of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):3890–9.
23.
XiaoX, OuB, YangH,et al. Breast contrast-enhanced ultrasound: is a scoring system feasible? A preliminary study in China. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105517.
24.
XiaoX, DongL, JiangQ,et al. 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.
25.
ShaoSH, LiCX, YaoMH,et al. Incorporation of contrast-enhanced. ultrasound in the differential diagnosis for breast lesions with inconsistent results on mammography and conventional ultrasound. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019 Dec 19. doi:10.3233/CH-190729.
26.
BokSK, JeonY, HwangPS. Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Effects of Progressive Resistive Exercise in Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol. 2016;14(1):18–24.
27.
HenrotP, LerouxA, BarlierC, GeninP. Breast microcalcifications: the lesions in anatomical pathology. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(2):141–52.
28.
KettenbachJ, HelbichTH, HuberS,et al. Computer-assisted quantitative assessment of power Doppler US: effects of microbubble contrast agent in the differentiation of breast tumors. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53(2):238–44.
29.
SidhuPS, AllanPL, CattinF,et al. Diagnostic efficacy of SonoVue, a second generation contrast agent, in the assessment of extracranial carotid or peripheral arteries using colour and spectral Doppler ultrasound: a multicentre study. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(937):44–51.
30.
KookSH, KwagHJ. Value of contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography using a microbubble echo-enhancing agent in evaluation of small breast lesions. J Clin Ultrasound. 2003;31(5):227–38.
31.
QuanJ, HongY, ZhangX,et al. The clinical role of contrast enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 breast disease. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;72(3):293–303.
32.
BaeS, YoonJH, MoonHJ,et al. Breast Microcalcifications: Diagnostic Outcomes According to Image-Guided Biopsy Method. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(5):996–1005.
33.
Demetri-LewisA, SlanetzPJ, EisenbergRL. Breast calcifications: the focal group. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(4):W325–43.
34.
FarshidG, SullivanT, DowneyP,et al. Independent predictors of breast malignancy in screen-detected microcalcifications: biopsy results in cases. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(11):1669–75.
35.
Hovanessian LarsenLJ, PeyvandiB, KlipfelN,et al. Granulomatous lobular mastitis: imaging, diagnosis, and treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):574–81.
36.
JonesMW, NorrisHJ, SnyderRC. Infiltrating syringomatous adenoma of the nipple. A clinical and pathological study of 11 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1989;13(3):197–201.
37.
KimSH, SeoBK, LeeJ,et al. Correlation of ultrasound findings with histology, tumor grade, and biological markers in breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(8):1531–8.
38.
DuYR, WuY, ChenM,et al. Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of small breast lesions. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;70(3):291–300.
39.
BakhtavarK, SaranM, BehzadifarM,et al. Magnetic resonance mammography in comparison with mammography in the discovery of multifocal, multicentric and bilateral lesions of breast cancer. Electron Physician. 2017;9(8):5083–7.
40.
LiuGF, WangZQ, ZhangSH,et al. Diagnostic and prognostic values of contrast enhanced ultrasound combined with diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in different subtypes of breast cancer. Int J Mol Med. 2018;42(1):105–14.
41.
ZhangW, XiaoX, XuX,et al. Non-Mass Breast Lesions on Ultrasound: Feature Exploration and Multimode Ultrasonic Diagnosis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(8):1703–11.
42.
AlabousiM, ZhaN, SalamehJP,et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer. detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(4):2058–71.
43.
TianJ, LiuQ, WangX,et al. Application of 3D and 2D quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) to differentiate between benign and malignant breast masses. Sci Rep. 2017;7:41216.
