Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced magnetic resonance for breast nodules

In the current study, we sought to evaluate the diagnostic efficacies of conventional ultrasound（US）, contrastenhanced US（CEUS）, combined US and CEUS and magnetic resonance imaging（MRI） in detecting focal solid breast lesions. Totally 117 patients with 120 BI-RADS category 4A-5 breast lesions were evaluated by conventional US and CEUS, and MRI, respectively. SonoVue was used as contrast agent in CEUS and injected as an intravenous bolus; nodule scan was performed 4 minutes after bolus injection. A specific sonographic quantification software was used to obtain color-coded maps of perfusion parameters for the investigated lesion, namely the time-intensity curve.The pattern of contrast enhancement and related indexes regarding the time-intensity curve were used to describe the lesions, comparatively with pathological results. Histopathologic examination revealed 46 benign and 74 malignant lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US in detecting malignant breast lesions were 90.14%, 95.92%, and 92.52%, respectively. Meanwhile, CE-MRI showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 88.73%, 95.92%, and91.67%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve for combined US and CEUS in discriminating benign from malignant breast lesions was 0.936, while that of MRI was 0.923, with no significant difference between them, as well as among groups. The time-intensity curve of malignant hypervascular fibroadenoma and papillary lesions mostly showed a fast-in/fast-out pattern, with no good correlation between them（kappa 〈0.20）. In conclusion, the combined use of conventional US and CEUS displays good agreement with MRI in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions.

Mammography combined with breast dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of early breast cancer

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the application of mammography combined with breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging(DCE-MRI) for the diagnosis of early breast cancer. Methods Mammography and DCE-MRI were performed for 120 patients with breast cancer(malignant, 102; benign; 18). Results The sensitivity of mammography for early diagnosis of breast cancer was 66.67%, specificity was 77.78%, and accuracy was 68.33%. The sensitivity of MRI for early diagnosis of breast cancer was 94.12%, specificity was 88.89%, and accuracy was 93.33%. However, the sensitivity of mammography combined with DCE-MRI volume imaging with enhanced water signal(VIEWS) scanning for early diagnosis of breast cancer was 97.06%, specificity was 94.44%, and accuracy was 96.67%. Conclusion Mammography combined with DCE-MRI increased the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosing early breast cancer.

The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in evaluating the size of early-stage breast neoplasms

Objective Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women. Accurate evaluation of the size and extent of the tumor is crucial in selecting a suitable surgical method for patients with breast cancer. Both overestimation and underestimation have important adverse effects on patient care. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of breast magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) and ultrasound(US) examination for measuring the size and extent of early-stage breast neoplasms.Methods The longest diameter of breast tumors in patients with T_(1–2)N_(0–1)M_0 invasive breast cancer preparing for breast-conserving surgery(BCS) was measured preoperatively by using both MRI and US and their accuracy was compared with that of postoperative pathologic examination. If the diameter difference was within 2 mm, it was considered to be consistent with pathologic examination.Results A total of 36 patients were imaged using both MRI and US. The mean longest diameter of the tumors on MRI, US, and postoperative pathologic examination was 20.86 mm ± 4.09 mm(range: 11–27 mm), 16.14 mm ± 4.91 mm(range: 6–26 mm), and 18.36 mm ± 3.88 mm(range: 9–24 mm). US examination underestimated the size of the tumor compared to that determined using pathologic examination(t = 3.49, P < 0.01), while MRI overestimated it(t =-6.35, P < 0.01). The linear correlation coefficients between the image measurements and pathologic tumor size were r = 0.826(P < 0.01) for MRI and r = 0.645(P < 0.01) for US. The rate of consistency of MRI and US compared to that with pathologic examination was 88.89% and 80.65%, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between them(χ~2 = 0.80, P > 0.05).Conclusion MRI and US are both effective methods to assess the size of breast tumors, and they maintain good consistency with pathologic examination. MRI has a better correlation with pathology. However, we should be careful about the risk of inaccurate size estimation.