Is there a Role for Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound in the Detection and Biopsy of MRI Only Visible Breast Lesions?

Third-look contrast-enhanced ultrasonography plus needle biopsy for differential diagnosis of magnetic resonance imaging-only detected breast lesions

Research has shown that in approximately 20-30% of cases, breast lesions that were not detected on mammography (MG) or ultrasonography (US) were incidentally found during preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination for breast cancer. MRI-guided needle biopsy is recommended or considered for such MRI-only detected breast lesions invisible on second-look US, but many facilities in Japan cannot perform this biopsy procedure because it is expensive and time consuming. Thus, a simpler and more accessible diagnostic method is needed. Two studies to date have shown that third-look contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) plus needle biopsy for MRI-only detected breast lesions (i.e., MRI + /MG-/US-) that were not detected on second-look US showed moderate/high sensitivity (57.1 and 90.9%) and high specificity (100.0% in both studies) with no severe complications. In addition, the identification rate was higher for MRI-only lesions with a higher MRI BI-RADS category (i.e., category 4/5) than for those with a lower category (i.e., category 3). Despite the fact that there are limitations in our literature review, CEUS plus needle biopsy is a feasible and convenient diagnostic tool for MRI-only lesions invisible on second-look US and is expected to reduce the frequency of MRI-guided needle biopsy. When third-look CEUS does not reveal MRI-only lesions, a further indication for MRI-guided needle biopsy should be considered according to the BI-RADS category.

Comparison of Linear and Convex-Array Transducers in Assessing the Enhancement Characteristics of Suspicious Breast Lesions at Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS)

The purpose of this study was to determine the observer agreement in assessing the enhancement pattern of suspicious breast lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using high and low frequency transducers. Methods: This prospective study included 70 patients with suspicious breast lesions detected at mammography and/or ultrasound and classified according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5, who underwent CEUS examinations between October 2020 and August 2021. Results: Participants’ ages ranged from 28 to 83 years (48.5 + 6.36, mean age + SD). We obtained a substantial agreement for the first reader (kappa = 0.614, p < 0.001) and a perfect agreement for the second and third reader (kappa = 1, p < 0.001) between the two transducers for the uptake pattern. A moderate agreement for the second and third reader (kappa = 0.517 and 0.538, respectively, p < 0.001) and only a fair agreement (kappa = 0.320, p < 0.001) in the case of the first reader for the perilesional enhancement was observed. We obtained an excellent inter-observer agreement (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient = 0.960, p < 0.001) for the degree of enhancement, a good inter-observer agreement for the uptake pattern and perilesional enhancement (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient = 0.831 and 0.853, respectively, p < 0.001), and a good and acceptable inter-observer agreement for internal homogeneity, perfusion defects and margins of the lesions (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient = 0.703, 0.703 and 0.792, respectively, p < 0.001) concerning the evaluation of breast lesions with the linear-array transducer. Conclusions: The evaluation of suspicious breast lesions by three experts with high-frequency linear-array transducer and low-frequency convex-array transducer was comparable in terms of uptake pattern and perilesional enhancement. The agreement regarding the evaluation of the degree of enhancement, the internal homogeneity, and the perfusion defects varied between fair and substantial. For all CEUS characteristics, the inter-observer agreement was superior for linear-array transducer, which leads to more a homogeneous and reproducible interpretation.

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis and Treatment Modulation of Breast Cancer

The aim of this paper is to highlight the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast cancer in terms of diagnosis, staging and follow-up of the post-treatment response. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is successfully used to diagnose multiple pathologies and has also clinical relevance in breast cancer. CEUS has high accuracy in differentiating benign from malignant lesions by analyzing the enhancement characteristics and calculating the time-intensity curve’s quantitative parameters. It also has a significant role in axillary staging, especially when the lymph nodes are not suspicious on clinical examination and have a normal appearance on gray-scale ultrasound. The most significant clinical impact consists of predicting the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which offers the possibility of adjusting the therapy by dynamically evaluating the patient. CEUS is a high-performance, feasible, non-irradiating, accessible, easy-to-implement imaging method and has proven to be a valuable addition to breast ultrasound.

Assessment of Additional MRI-Detected Breast Lesions Using the Quantitative Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Scans and Its Comparability with Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Findings of the Breast

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for additional MR-detected enhancing lesions and to determine whether or not kinetic pattern results comparable to dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the breast can be obtained using the quantitative analysis of CEUS.

Materials and Methods

In this single-center prospective study, a total of 71 additional MR-detected breast lesions were included. CEUS examination was performed, and lesions were categorized according to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CEUS were calculated by comparing the BI-RADS category to the final pathology results. The degree of agreement between CEUS and DCE-MRI kinetic patterns was evaluated using weighted kappa.

Results

On CEUS, 46 lesions were assigned as BI-RADS category 4B, 4C, or 5, while 25 lesions category 3 or 4A. The diagnostic performance of CEUS for enhancing lesions on DCE-MRI was excellent, with 84.9% sensitivity, 94.4% specificity, and 97.8% positive predictive value. A total of 57/71 (80%) lesions had correlating kinetic patterns and showed good agreement (weighted kappa = 0.66) between CEUS and DCE-MRI. Benign lesions showed excellent agreement (weighted kappa = 0.84), and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) showed good agreement (weighted kappa = 0.69).

Conclusion

The diagnostic performance of CEUS for additional MR-detected breast lesions was excellent. Accurate kinetic pattern assessment, fairly comparable to DCE-MRI, can be obtained for benign and IDC lesions using CEUS.

Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy Between Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and DCE-MRI for Mass- and Non-Mass-Like Enhancement Types in Breast Lesions

Background

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can provide angiogenesis information about breast lesions; however, its diagnostic performance in comparison with that of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) has not been systematically investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of CEUS and DCE-MRI in mass-like and non-mass-like enhancement types of breast lesions.

Material and Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 252 patients with breast lesions who underwent CEUS and DCE-MRI before surgery between January 2016 and February 2020. Histopathological results were used as reference standards. All patients were classified into mass-like and non-mass-like enhancement lesion groups. The mass-like lesion group was further divided into three categories according to different sizes (group 1: <10 mm, group 2: 10-20 mm, and group 3: >20 mm). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and receiver operating characteristic curve were analyzed to assess the diagnostic performance of these two modalities.

Results

For mass-like breast lesions, DCE-MRI (Az=0.981) manifested better diagnostic performance than CEUS (Az=0.940) in medium-sized (10-20 mm) tumors (Z=2.018, P=0.043), but both had similar diagnostic performance in smaller (<10 mm) and larger (>20 mm) tumors (P=0.717, P=0.394). For non-mass-like enhancement lesions, CEUS and DCE-MRI showed no significant difference (Z=1.590, P=0.119) and revealed good diagnostic performance (Az=0.859, Az=0.947) in differentiating the two groups.

Conclusion

For mass-like breast lesions, DCE-MRI showed better diagnostic performance than CEUS in differentiating benign and malignant tumors of medium-sizes (10-20mm) but not of smaller (<10mm) and larger (>20 mm) sizes. For non-mass-like lesions, both modalities showed similar diagnostic performance.