The discriminatory diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound combined with blood cell analysis for granulomatous lobular mastitis and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May 3, 2024
The discriminatory diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound combined with blood cell analysis for granulomatous lobular mastitis and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast
To explore the discriminatory diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound(US) combined with blood cell analysis (BCA) for Granulomatous Lobular Mastitis (GLM) and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) of the breast.
METHODS:
A total of 157 breast disease patients were collected and divided into two groups based on postoperative pathological results: the GLM group (57 cases with 57 lesions) and the IDC group (100 cases with 100 lesions). Differences in multimodal ultrasound features and the presence of BCA were compared between the two groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate the optimal cutoff values, sensitivity, specificity, 95% confidence interval (CI), and the area under the curve (AUC) for patient age, lesion size, lesion resistive index (RI), and white blood cell (WBC) count in BCA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and AUC were calculated for different diagnostic methods.
RESULTS:
There were statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) observed between GLM and IDC patients in terms of age, breast pain, the factors in Conventional US (lesion size, RI, nipple delineation, solitary/multiple lesions, margin, liquefaction area, growth direction, microcalcifications, posterior echogenicity and abnormal axillary lymph nodes), the factors in CEUS (contrast agent enhancement intensity, enhancement pattern, enhancement range, and crab-like enhancement) and the factors in BCA (white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocytes and monocytes). ROC curve analysis results showed that the optimal cutoff values for distinguishing GLM from IDC were 40.5 years for age, 7.15 cm for lesion size, 0.655 for lesion RI, and 10.525*109/L for white blood cells. The diagnostic accuracy of conventional US combined with CEUS (US-CEUS) was the highest (97.45%). The diagnostic performance AUCs for US-CEUS, CEUS, and US were 0.965, 0.921 and 0.832, respectively.
CONCLUSION:
Multifactorial analysis of multimodal ultrasound features and BCA had high clinical application value in the differential diagnosis of GLM and IDC.
YinY, LiuX, MengQ, et al. Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis: Etiology, Clinical Manifestation, Diagnosis and Treatment [J]. J Invest Surg. 2022;35(3):709–20.
2.
BaslaimMM, KhayatHA, Al-AmoudiSAIdiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis: A Heterogeneous Disease with Variable Clinical Presentation [J]. World Journal of Surgery. 2007;31(8):1677–81.
3.
JiangL, LiX, SunB, et al. Clinicopathological features of granulomatous lobular mastitis and mammary duct ectasia [J]. Oncology Letters. 2019.
4.
AghajanzadehM, HassanzadehR, AlizadehSefat S, et al. Granulomatous mastitis: Presentations, diagnosis, treatment and outcome in 206 patients from the north of Iran [J]. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2015;24(4):456–60.
5.
SripathiS, AyachitA, BalaA, et al. Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a diagnostic dilemma for the breast radiologist [J]. Insights into Imaging. 2016;7(4):523–9.
6.
FazzioRT, ShahSS, SandhuNP, et al. Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: imaging update and review [J]. Insights into Imaging. 2016;7(4):531–9.
7.
SteuerAB, SternMJ, CobosG, et al. Clinical Characteristics and Medical Management of Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis [J]. JAMA Dermatology. 2020;156(4).
8.
MagnySJ, ShikhmanR, KeppkeAL. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [M]. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. August 29, 2022.
9.
YoonJH, KimMJ, MoonHJ, et al. Subcategorization of Ultrasonographic BI-RADS Category 4: Positive Predictive Value and Clinical Factors Affecting It [J]. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 2011;37(5):693–9.
10.
WangQ, LiX-L, HeY-P, et al. Three-dimensional shear wave elastography for differentiation of breast lesions: An initial study with quantitative analysis using three orthogonal planes [J]. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. 2019;71(3):311–24.
11.
ChoiJS, HanB-K, KoEY, et al. Additional diagnostic value of shear-wave elastography and color Doppler US for evaluation of breast non-mass lesions detected at B-mode US [J]. European Radiology. 2016;26(10):3542–9.
12.
ChoN, JangM, LyouCY, et al. Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Masses at Breast US: Combined US Elastography and Color Doppler US—Influence on Radiologist Accuracy [J]. Radiology. 2012;262(1):80–90.
13.
ShiXQ, DongY, TanX, et al. Accuracy of conventional ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in assessing the size of breast cancer [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;82(2):157–68.
14.
YuJF, ZhangS, YinHH, et al. Two-dimensional shear wave elastography with two different systems for the diagnosis of breast lesions [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;82(1):53–62.
15.
YuMQ, ZhangLL, JiangLP, et al. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of BI-RADS-US 4a lesions less than 2 cm in diameter [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2023;83(3):195–205.
16.
ZhangY, SunX, LiJ,et al. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and superb microvascular imaging in differentiating benign from malignant solid breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;81(2):109–21.
17.
CuiyingL, HaiyanG, LijunL, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced magnetic resonance for breast nodules [J]. The Journal of Biomedical Research. 2018;32(3).
18.
JungEM, JungF, StroszczynskiC,
Dynamic endoluminal contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for display of drainages in inflammatory abdominal fluid collections1 [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;80(2):49–59.
19.
DuJ, LiF-H, FangH, et al. Correlation of Real-time Gray Scale Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography With Microvessel Density and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression for Assessment of Angiogenesis in Breast Lesions [J]. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2008;27(6):821–31.
20.
ChengJ, DuYT, DingHY[Granulomatous lobular mastitis: a clinicopathologic study of 68 cases] [J]. Zhonghua bing li xue za zhi=Chinese Journal of Pathology. 2010;39(10):678–80.
21.
GuoW, WangT, LiF, et al. Non-mass Breast Lesions: Could Multimodal Ultrasound Imaging Be Helpful for Their Diagnosis? [J]. Diagnostics. 2022;12(12).
22.
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 [J]. European Radiology. 2016;27(6):2443–50.
23.
ChenC, XiaoX, OuB, et al. Breast Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound: Is a Scoring System Feasible? —-A Preliminary Study in China [J]. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8).
24.
MillerF, SeidmanI, SmithCAGranulomatous mastitis [J]. New York state Journal of Medicine. 1971;71(8):2194–5.
25.
ShinHJ, KimHH, HuhMO, et al. Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer [J]. The British Journal of Radiology. 2011;84(997):19–30.
26.
ChangY-W, KwonKH, ChoiDL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer and correlation with prognostic factors [J]. Acta Radiologica. 2009;50(9):990–8.
27.
SunY, HuangH, ChenJ, et al. Invasive fungal infection in patients receiving chemotherapy for hematological malignancy: a multicenter, prospective, observational study in China [J]. Tumor Biology. 2014;36(2):757–67.
28.
HelalTEA, ShashLS, SaadEl-Din SA, et al. Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis: Cytologic and Histologic Study of 65 Egyptian Patients [J]. Acta Cytologica. 2016;60(5):438–44.
29.
NissanN, Furman-HaranE, AllweisT, et al. Noncontrast Breast MRI During Pregnancy Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging: A Feasibility Study [J]. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2019;49(2):508–17.
30.
YuX, HaoX, WanJ, et al. Correlation between Ultrasound Appearance of Small Breast Cancer and Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis [J]. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 2018;44(2):342–9.
31.
SeoM, SohnYMDifferentiation of benign and metastatic axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer: additive value of shear wave elastography to B-mode ultrasound [J]. Clin Imaging. 2018;50258–63.
32.
GeisS, PrantlL, SchoeneichM, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) - an unique monitoring technique to assess microvascularization after buried flap transplantation [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2016;62(3):205–14.
33.
BackSJ, AcharyaPT, BellahRD, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the kidneys and adrenals in children [J]. Pediatric Radiology. 2021;51(12):2198–213.
34.
DietrichCF, BamberJ, BerzigottiA, et al. EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Use of Liver Ultrasound Elastography, Update 2017 (Long Version) [J]. 2017;38(4):e16–e47.
35.
DietrichCF, NolsøeCP, BarrRG, et al. Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver-Update 2020 WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46(10):2579–604.
36.
LeeSC, TchelepiH, KhademN, et al. Imaging of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound: A Pictorial Essay [J]. Ultrasound Quarterly. 2022;38(1):2–12.
37.
ZhangY, ZhangB, FanX, et al. Clinical value and application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions [J]. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine. 2020;20(3):2063–9.
38.
GuoR, LuG, QinB, et al. Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review [J]. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 2018;44(1):37–70.
39.
LuoJ, ChenJ-D, ChenQ, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improved performance of breast imaging reporting and data system evaluation of critical breast lesions [J]. World Journal of Radiology. 2016;8(6).
40.
DuJ, LiFH, FangH, et al. Correlation of real-time gray scale contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression for assessment of angiogenesis in breast lesions [J]. Journal of ultrasound in medicine: official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2008;27(6):821–31.
41.
SrabovicN, MujagicZ, Mujanovic-MustedanagicJ, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 expression in breast cancer and its correlation to vascular endothelial growth factor a [J]. International Journal of Breast Cancer2013;2013746749.
42.
WangXY, KangLK, LanCYContrast-enhanced ultrasonography in diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions [J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2014;35(4):415–20.
43.
LarsenLJH, PeyvandiB, KlipfelN, et al. Granulomatous Lobular Mastitis: Imaging, Diagnosis, and Treatment [J]. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2009;193(2):574–81.
44.
YinL, AgyekumEA, ZhangQ, et al. Differentiation Between Granulomatous Lobular Mastitis and Breast Cancer Using Quantitative Parameters on Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound [J]. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022;12.
45.
ÖksüzoğluB, VuralM, AbalıH, et al. Blood Flow Indices by Doppler Ultrasonography Vary with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy but Are Not Related to Plasma VEGF Levels in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer [J]. Oncology. 2006;71(3-4):185–9.
