Correlation Between Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Characteristics (Qualitative and Quantitative) and Pathological Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer

Current status and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnosis of breast lesions

Advances in various imaging modalities for breast lesions have improved diagnostic capabilities not only for tumors but also for non-tumorous lesions. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) plays a crucial role not only in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions, identification of sentinel lymph nodes, and diagnosis of lymph node metastasis but also in assessing the therapeutic effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). In CEUS, two image interpretation approaches, i.e., qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, are employed and applied in various clinical settings. In this paper, we review CEUS for breast lesions, including its various applications.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the preoperative prediction of pathological characteristics in breast cancer

Objective

We aimed to investigate the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the preoperative prediction of the histological grades and molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Methods

A total of 183 patients with pathologically confirmed breast cancer were included. Contrast enhancement patterns and quantitative parameters were compared in different groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the efficacy of CEUS in the preoperative prediction of pathological characteristics, including histologic grade and molecular subtypes.

Results

Heterogeneous enhancement, perfusion defects, and peripheral radial vessels were mostly observed in higher histologic grade (grade III) breast cancer. Heterogeneous enhancement and perfusion defect were the most effective indicators for grade III breast cancer, with the areas under the ROC curve of 0.768 and 0.756, respectively. There were significant differences in the enhancement intensity, post-enhanced margin, perfusion defects, and peripheral radial vessel among the different molecular subtypes of breast cancer (all P < 0.01). Perfusion defects and clear edge after enhancement were the best qualitative criteria for the diagnosis of HER-2 overexpressed and triple-negative breast cancers, and the corresponding areas under the ROC curves were 0.804 and 0.905, respectively. There were significant differences in PE, WiR, WiPI, and WiWoAUC between grade III vs grade I and II breast cancer (P < 0.05). PE, WiR, WiPI, and WiWoAUC had good efficiency in the diagnosis of high-histologic-grade breast cancer. PE had the highest diagnostic efficiency in Luminal A, while WiPI had the highest diagnostic efficiency in Luminal B subtype breast cancer, and the areas under the ROC curve were 0.825 and 0.838, respectively. WiWoAUC and WiR were the most accurate parameters for assessing triple-negative subtype breast cancers, and the areas under the curve were 0.932 and 0.922, respectively.

Conclusion

Qualitative and quantitative perfusion analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound may be useful in the non-invasive prediction of the histological grade and molecular subtypes of breast cancers.

Combining primary tumor features derived from conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound facilitates the prediction of positive axillary lymph nodes in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 malignant breast lesions

PURPOSE

To determine whether the primary tumor features derived from conventional ultrasound (US) and contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) facilitate the prediction of positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) in breast cancer diagnosed as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4.

METHODS

A total of 240 women with breast cancer who underwent preoperative conventional US, strain elastography, and CEUS between September 2016 and December 2019 were included. The multiple parameters of the primary tumor were obtained, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to predict positive ALNs. Then three prediction models (conventional US features, CEUS features, and the combined features) were developed, and the diagnostic performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

On conventional US, the traits of large size and the non-circumscribed margin of the primary tumor were marked as two independent predictors. On CEUS, the features of vessel perforation or distortion and the enhanced range of the primary tumor were marked as two independent predictors for positive ALNs. Three prediction models were then developed: model A (conventional US features), model B (CEUS features), and model C (model A plus B). Model C yielded the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.88] compared with model A (AUC 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.81; P = 0.008) and model B (AUC 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80; P < 0.001) as per the DeLong test.

CONCLUSION

CEUS, as a non-invasive examination technique, can be used to predict ALN metastasis. Combining conventional US and CEUS may produce favorable predictive accuracy for positive ALNs in BI-RADS category 4 breast cancer.

Determining whether the diagnostic value of B-ultrasound combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound and shear wave elastography in breast mass-like and non-mass-like lesions differs: a diagnostic test

Background

Mass-like (ML) and non-mass-like (NML) are two manifestations of breast lesions on ultrasound. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can make up for the limitation of B-ultrasound (US) in the observation of focal blood flow, and shear wave elastography (SWE) can supplement the hardness information of the lesion. The present study aimed to analyze the characteristic manifestations of US, CEUS, and SWE in NML and ML breast and evaluate whether the diagnostic performance of these three ultrasound techniques differs in terms of differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions.

Methods

From January to August 2021, 382 patients (417 breast lesions) underwent US, CEUS, and SWE examinations. Of these, 204 women (218 breast lesions) were included in our study due to subsequent biopsy or surgery with pathological findings. The patients were divided into ML and NML groups according to the ultrasound characteristics, and the differences in multimodal ultrasound performance between benign and malignant NML and benign and malignant ML breast lesions were compared. The diagnostic performance of US, US + CEUS, US + SWE, US + CEUS + SWE for ML, NML and all breast lesions was evaluated by analyzing sensitivity, specificity and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC).

Results

Pathologically, the 218 lesions included 96 malignant and 122 benign breast lesions. The sensitivity and specificity of US + CEUS + SWE in all lesion groups, ML group and NML group were 92.7% and 90.2%, 95.9% and 90.3%, 91.3% and 79.3%, respectively. In all breast group, AUCs of US + CEUS, US + SWE, US + CEUS + SWE were statistically different from AUC of US (P=0.0010, 0.0001, 0.0001). In the ML group, the AUC of US + CEUS, US + SWE, US + CEUS + SWE were statistically different from that of US (P=0.0120, 0.0008, 0.0002). In the NML group, there was a statistical difference between US + SWE and US AUC (P=0.0149).

Conclusions

US, CEUS, and SWE have an important diagnostic value for benign and malignant ML and NML breast lesions. Multimodal ultrasound combined with US, CEUS, and SWE can improve the diagnostic efficacy in distinguishing between benign and malignant ML and NML lesions.