# Diagnostic Significance of 3D Automated Breast Volume Scanner in a Combination with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Breast Cancer

Authors: Quan Yuan; Canxu Song; Yan Tian; Nan Chen; Xing He; Ying Wang; Pihua Han
Journal: BioMed Research International
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

The incidence of cancer is increasing today, particularly lung and chest cancer. Employing novel methods to detect cancer in its earliest stages and discover painless, noninvasive treatments are urgently needed. The goal of the proposed study is to investigate the value of automated breast volume scanning (ABUS) in conjunction with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in properly diagnosing breast cancer in its early stages and the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in treating the disease. For the research study, information on 98 patients who had NAC and surgery in the breast surgery department of the Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital has been gathered. All patients have received four cycles of NAC and underwent conventional ultrasound (HUSS), CEUS, ABUS, and pathological examination. At the same time, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, single factor, multiple linear regression, and other methods have also been used to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of breast cancer and NAC efficacy evaluation results. The study of this paper is totally based on the data collected from Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital. The statistical and computational analyses are performed on the data collected for drawing inferences. When the findings are compared to the results of the pathological examination, HUSS has demonstrated a significant distinction between benign and malignant diagnoses with a statistical value ofP<0.05.ABUS combined with CEUS has shown no considerable differences in correlation study. Except for negative likelihood ratio, the diagnostic performance indexes of CEUS+ ABUS are substantially higher than HHUS with P<0.05. ROC curve analysis is also performed which shows that CEUS and ABUS combination has higher precision in the analysis of breast cancer. ABUS pooled with CEUS shows great application value in the judgment of breast cancer as per the results obtained from the statistical analysis on data of 98 patients.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Epidemiological data show that there are about 12.7 million new cases of cancer worldwide each year and up to 7.6 million deaths from cancer. In terms of the incidence and mortality rates of all cancer cases, breast cancer ranks first among diseases that kill women, accounting for 23% and 14%, respectively. This proportion is relatively high, and it also shows an increasing trend year by year. In conclusion, breast cancer constitutes a serious threat to the health of women [1, 2]. Breast cancer develops slowly, and the majority of cases are found through routine screenings. The following are signs of breast cancer: newly discovered lump or underarm bulge (armpit), swelling or thickening of a breast region, breast skin irritation, nipple pulling in or nipple region discomfort, bleeding from the breasts, in addition to breast milk and many more. Therefore, how to make early diagnosis of breast cancer and judge the therapeutic effect of tumor has become the main topic of clinical concern.At present, the approaches for initial analysis of breast cancer include traditional ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), molybdenum target radiography (MTR), and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Ultrasound is currently the most important imaging method for clinical diagnosis of breast diseases [3–5]. Studies on the effectiveness of the ABUS in the prediction of breast cancer have been conducted in recent years. These results showed that the detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity of ABUS in the diagnosis of breast cancer are more than that of MTR, but whether it is higher than HHUS is still controversial [6–8]. Some studies showed that ABUS and HHUS did not show considerable differences in prediction of cancer in breast and specificity, detection rate, and sensitivity [9]. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is an important part of preoperative treatment of breast cancer, which is systemic therapy as the first step of breast cancer treatment [10–12]. Although NAC can prolong survival with tumor, drug resistance or tumor progression may occur during treatment, which may delay the timing of surgery. In addition, some reports indicated that there was no considerable variance in endurance rate between breast cancer patients with NAC and postoperative chemotherapy [13–16]. In general, there is still a great controversy about the efficacy of NAC [17]. The adjustment of the chemotherapeutic regimen and long-term prognosis depend greatly on the prompt and precise evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of NAC.The most crucial techniques for assessing NAC effectiveness at the moment are pathology and imaging practices. Pathology is still the benchmark for assessing the effectiveness of chemotherapy on tumors and its diagnostic accuracy is high. However, it has disadvantages such as invasiveness, the risk of needle metastasis caused by repeated puncture during chemotherapy, distant metastasis of tumor, and difficulty for patients to accept the disease. MRI is the gold standard for image evaluation, which can accurately observe lesions and have a good differentiation effect between lesions and normal primary tissues, as well as reflect the blood perfusion in lesions [18]. Pure blood pool imaging, or CEUS, is carried out by infusing a microbubble contrast dye into a peripheral venous mass to make the lesion tissue more visible. It visually displays the microperfusion of the lesion before and after chemotherapy. In addition, it has many advantages such as relatively low price, no nephrotoxicity, and repeatability [19].In summary, ABUS and CEUS are favorable procedures for clinical finding of breast cancer and assessment of the efficacy of NAC. However, both methods have their own advantages, disadvantages, and indications. Hence, it was speculated that the combination of the two can improve the accuracy of diagnosis and efficacy judgment. Therefore, patients undergoing NAC and surgical treatment in the breast surgery department of Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital were nominated as the research objects.The main research highlights of the paper are as follows:(1)
Conventional ultrasound (HUSS), CEUS, and ABUS were performed before NAC, at the 2nd and 4th cycles, and after the end of chemotherapy to check the efficacy of diagnostic method(2)
The assessment of CEUS collective with ABUS in the analysis of breast cancer was explored, and the efficacy of NAC was evaluated to deliver allusion and basis for clinical diagnosis and efficacy estimation of connected ailments(3)
The three methods commonly used in clinical diagnosis of breast cancer and evaluation of NAC efficacy, namely, clinical evaluation, imaging evaluation, and pathological evaluation, are analyzed and compared for CEUS and ABUSRest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section2, a detailed elaboration of the research object, imaging examination methods, treatment and pathological examination, diagnostic performance analysis, curative effect evaluation, and statistical methods is discussed. In Section 3, results and discussion on pathological examination results, maximum diameter assessment of the malignant tumor, evaluation of consistency for diagnosis of tumor, and NAC efficacy are elaborated. In Section 4, overall summary of the diagnostic significance of CEUS and ABUS is done. In Section 5, the research work is concluded.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. The Research Object

From April 2021 to April 2022, 98 patients who underwent NAC and operation in breast surgery department of Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital were designated as the research objects. All patients received HUSS, CEUS, ABUS, and pathological examination. Inclusion criteria are as follows: before NAC therapy, ultrasound-guided coarse needle biopsy was performed, which was pathologically confirmed as clear invasive breast cancer. NAC patients underwent HUSS, ABUS, and CEUS with complete pathological data. Exclusion criteria are as follows: early pregnancy with breast cancer; elderly and infirm patients with serious organic heart and lung diseases; patients who were unable to undergo CEUS or ultrasound imaging; patients with distant metastasis, preoperative treatment was rescue therapy rather than NAC; patients with swelling or skin ulceration that was difficult to measure; multifocal breast cancer; and Paget’s disease. Informed consent was obtained for all studies in this work.


### 2.2. Imaging Examination Methods

HUSS: GE (General Electric) LOGICE9 color Doppler ultrasound diagnostic instrument was used, and the frequency was 9 ~ 15 Hz. The examination was performed by a sonographer with more than five years of experience. The patient was supine with both upper limbs raised, fully exposing the breasts. It was made easier for people to take the lateral decubitus position assessment if they had plump breasts and had trouble with the lateral image examination. The probe was applied to the breast surface with appropriate pressure and was scanned continuously perpendicular to the skin. The anatomical layers of the breast were observed, and the ultrasound instrument was adjusted according to the nature and location of the lesions that were available. The tissue surrounding the lesion can be clearly seen until the lesion is in the center of the screen, allowing for detailed description and recording of the lesion’s location, size, morphology, internal echo properties and characteristics, boundary properties, edge echo characteristics, and surrounding tissue conditions. The stone clock positioning method was used and the thoroughgoing span of the tumor in three quadrants and the distance from the nipple were measured on the maximum display section of the tumor. In addition, the maximum section blood flow state of the tumor should be observed and recorded under Doppler conditions.CEUS: GE LOGICE9 color Doppler ultrasound diagnostic instrument was used at a frequency of 7-9 Hz. The patient was set up for intravenous access, and the position preparation was consistent with HUSS examination. SonoVue from Bracco was used as a contrast agent. The lesions were observed under two-dimensional conditions and the sections with abnormal blood supply or suspicious edge infiltration were selected as the contrast observation sections. Enough breast tissues were collected on both sides of the lesion for comparison. Meanwhile, the CEUS was switched to contrast mode. 5 mL contrast agent microbubble suspension was intravenously injected, and 5 mL normal saline was injected into the flushing tube. Doctors dynamically observed the enhancement characteristics of the lesion, including the enhancement mode of the tumor. The tumor’s maximum diameter and image features were recorded, together with the distribution of the contrast agent in the area in front of the invasion of the tumor and the perfusion process. The angiography parameters and all imaging data were saved.ABUS inspection: GE ABUS inspection system was employed. The ABUS workstation is an automatic image acquisition system, which can automatically adjust the depth and gain of the scan, and perform reconstruction work by itself. When evaluating patients with dense glandular breasts, automated breast ultrasound, or ABS, is a complementary ultrasound technique that is becoming more and more popular. Associated to individuals with fatty breasts, those with thick breasts have an upper chance of breast cancer. Additionally, mammography has a low sensitivity for finding breast tumors in this patient population, particularly if they are not accompanied with architectural deformation or calcifications. The ABUS is a standardized exam that has several benefits in both screening and diagnostic settings: it improves workflow, decreases examination time, and boosts the rate of breast cancer diagnosis.Meanwhile, it can also obtain cross-sectional, sagittal, and coronal images. The volume of each scan was15.4cm×17.0cm×5cm, and the probe frequency was 6-14 MHz. All ABUS operators and analysts had received Food and Drug Administration- (FDA-) mandated training provided by GE and had been certified. Before examination, the physician chose the most appropriate scan mode according to the size of the breast. In general, the anterior and posterior positions, lateral positions, and medial positions of the mammary gland are examined, and the upper or lower positions were scanned if necessary. After the scan, the scan images were sent to the workstation and the ultrasound physicians with more than five years of working experience analyzed them in blind state, referring to the Bi-Rads standard developed by American College of Radiology (ACR). Detailed information of the lesion was recorded, including number, maximum diameter, location, quadrant, distance, tumor morphology, tumor growth direction, tumor margin, echo characteristics, posterior echo characteristics, calcification and presence of structural distortion, catheter changes, skin changes, edema, and presence of convergence signs.


### 2.3. Treatment and Pathological Examination

NAC chemotherapy regimen: 1, TEC∗6 (docetaxel+pharmorubicin+cyclophosphamide); 2, EC∗4-TH∗4 (pharmorubicin+cyclophosphamide, continuation docetaxel+herceptin); and 3, TX∗3-ECX∗3 (docetaxel+tegafur, followed with pharmorubicin+cyclophosphamide+tegafur).Operation and pathology: one week before chemotherapy, a coarse needle puncture biopsy (TSK 14G biopsy needle) was performed on the lesion and 6-8 effective tissues were taken out. Biopsy specimens were sent for examination to obtain pathological types and immunohistochemical indicators. Modified radical mastectomy or breast conserving surgery was performed within three weeks after the end of chemotherapy. The size of lesions and axillary lymph node metastasis were measured after gross specimens were submitted for examination and were compared with puncture specimens before chemotherapy for postoperative pathological MP grading. The specific and detailed pathological MP grades were shown in Table1.Table 1
Pathological grading standards.
GradeThe symptom manifestations1st gradeThe infiltrating cells did not change or only a few cells did, and the total number of cells remained the same.2nd gradeThe amount of invasive cancer cells reduced somewhat, but the total amount of cancer cells remained high, with a reduction of no more than 30%.3rd gradeBetween 30% and 90% fewer cancer cells were seen.4th gradeMore than 90% of the cancer cells were eliminated, leaving only a few small clusters and solitary cells.5th gradeThe main tumor bed lacked infiltrating cancer cells, yet there may be mammary carcinoma in situ..


### 2.4. Diagnostic Performance Analysis

The ROC curve is mainly used to assess the classification/diagnosis effect of a certain index and to find the optimal index critical value to achieve the best classification effect. The 1-specificity is the abscissa of the curve, and the sensitivity is the ordinate. The sensitivity and 1-specificity corresponding to each truncated value constitute coordinate points. ROC is obtained when multiple coordinate points are connected. In this study, it was intended to use ROC curve to assess the analytic value of HUSS and CEUS+ ABUS for NAC, and the indexes were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic values. Sensitivity analysis, accuracy analysis, positive predictive value (PPV), and area under ROC curve (AUC) metrics are used to evaluate the efficacy of the combined methods used for the diagnosis and cure for breast cancer.After the diagnostic efficacy of different imaging methods was evaluated by ROC curve, the diagnostic value was comprehensively evaluated by single factor and multiple linear regression.


### 2.5. Curative Effect Evaluation

Prior to and following chemotherapy, the tumor’s largest diameter was measured by HUSS and assessed in accordance with the RECIST evaluation criteria. The efficacy evaluation was graded into progressed disease (PD), partial response (PR), complete response (CR), and stable disease (SD). CR and PR were effective, while SD and PD were ineffective. The details were shown in Table2.Table 2
Efficacy evaluation criteria for solid tumors.
Grading of efficacyStandardCREntirely tumor lesions vanishedPRTarget lesions’ longest diameters added together were decreased by 30%.SDThe lesion changes were between PR and PDPDThe development of new lesions, a 20% rise in the aggregate of the biggest widths of target lesions, or a clear development of nontarget lesions


### 2.6. Statistical Methods

Statistical Package for Social Sciences 22.0 software was used, and the quantity data were articulated in rapports ofmean±standarddeviation (x¯±s). T-test was used for assessment amongst groups. An intragroup comparison was made using analysis of variance. Chi-square test was used for counting data. P<0.05 was statistically significant.


## 2.1. The Research Object

From April 2021 to April 2022, 98 patients who underwent NAC and operation in breast surgery department of Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital were designated as the research objects. All patients received HUSS, CEUS, ABUS, and pathological examination. Inclusion criteria are as follows: before NAC therapy, ultrasound-guided coarse needle biopsy was performed, which was pathologically confirmed as clear invasive breast cancer. NAC patients underwent HUSS, ABUS, and CEUS with complete pathological data. Exclusion criteria are as follows: early pregnancy with breast cancer; elderly and infirm patients with serious organic heart and lung diseases; patients who were unable to undergo CEUS or ultrasound imaging; patients with distant metastasis, preoperative treatment was rescue therapy rather than NAC; patients with swelling or skin ulceration that was difficult to measure; multifocal breast cancer; and Paget’s disease. Informed consent was obtained for all studies in this work.


## 2.2. Imaging Examination Methods

HUSS: GE (General Electric) LOGICE9 color Doppler ultrasound diagnostic instrument was used, and the frequency was 9 ~ 15 Hz. The examination was performed by a sonographer with more than five years of experience. The patient was supine with both upper limbs raised, fully exposing the breasts. It was made easier for people to take the lateral decubitus position assessment if they had plump breasts and had trouble with the lateral image examination. The probe was applied to the breast surface with appropriate pressure and was scanned continuously perpendicular to the skin. The anatomical layers of the breast were observed, and the ultrasound instrument was adjusted according to the nature and location of the lesions that were available. The tissue surrounding the lesion can be clearly seen until the lesion is in the center of the screen, allowing for detailed description and recording of the lesion’s location, size, morphology, internal echo properties and characteristics, boundary properties, edge echo characteristics, and surrounding tissue conditions. The stone clock positioning method was used and the thoroughgoing span of the tumor in three quadrants and the distance from the nipple were measured on the maximum display section of the tumor. In addition, the maximum section blood flow state of the tumor should be observed and recorded under Doppler conditions.CEUS: GE LOGICE9 color Doppler ultrasound diagnostic instrument was used at a frequency of 7-9 Hz. The patient was set up for intravenous access, and the position preparation was consistent with HUSS examination. SonoVue from Bracco was used as a contrast agent. The lesions were observed under two-dimensional conditions and the sections with abnormal blood supply or suspicious edge infiltration were selected as the contrast observation sections. Enough breast tissues were collected on both sides of the lesion for comparison. Meanwhile, the CEUS was switched to contrast mode. 5 mL contrast agent microbubble suspension was intravenously injected, and 5 mL normal saline was injected into the flushing tube. Doctors dynamically observed the enhancement characteristics of the lesion, including the enhancement mode of the tumor. The tumor’s maximum diameter and image features were recorded, together with the distribution of the contrast agent in the area in front of the invasion of the tumor and the perfusion process. The angiography parameters and all imaging data were saved.ABUS inspection: GE ABUS inspection system was employed. The ABUS workstation is an automatic image acquisition system, which can automatically adjust the depth and gain of the scan, and perform reconstruction work by itself. When evaluating patients with dense glandular breasts, automated breast ultrasound, or ABS, is a complementary ultrasound technique that is becoming more and more popular. Associated to individuals with fatty breasts, those with thick breasts have an upper chance of breast cancer. Additionally, mammography has a low sensitivity for finding breast tumors in this patient population, particularly if they are not accompanied with architectural deformation or calcifications. The ABUS is a standardized exam that has several benefits in both screening and diagnostic settings: it improves workflow, decreases examination time, and boosts the rate of breast cancer diagnosis.Meanwhile, it can also obtain cross-sectional, sagittal, and coronal images. The volume of each scan was15.4cm×17.0cm×5cm, and the probe frequency was 6-14 MHz. All ABUS operators and analysts had received Food and Drug Administration- (FDA-) mandated training provided by GE and had been certified. Before examination, the physician chose the most appropriate scan mode according to the size of the breast. In general, the anterior and posterior positions, lateral positions, and medial positions of the mammary gland are examined, and the upper or lower positions were scanned if necessary. After the scan, the scan images were sent to the workstation and the ultrasound physicians with more than five years of working experience analyzed them in blind state, referring to the Bi-Rads standard developed by American College of Radiology (ACR). Detailed information of the lesion was recorded, including number, maximum diameter, location, quadrant, distance, tumor morphology, tumor growth direction, tumor margin, echo characteristics, posterior echo characteristics, calcification and presence of structural distortion, catheter changes, skin changes, edema, and presence of convergence signs.


## 2.3. Treatment and Pathological Examination

NAC chemotherapy regimen: 1, TEC∗6 (docetaxel+pharmorubicin+cyclophosphamide); 2, EC∗4-TH∗4 (pharmorubicin+cyclophosphamide, continuation docetaxel+herceptin); and 3, TX∗3-ECX∗3 (docetaxel+tegafur, followed with pharmorubicin+cyclophosphamide+tegafur).Operation and pathology: one week before chemotherapy, a coarse needle puncture biopsy (TSK 14G biopsy needle) was performed on the lesion and 6-8 effective tissues were taken out. Biopsy specimens were sent for examination to obtain pathological types and immunohistochemical indicators. Modified radical mastectomy or breast conserving surgery was performed within three weeks after the end of chemotherapy. The size of lesions and axillary lymph node metastasis were measured after gross specimens were submitted for examination and were compared with puncture specimens before chemotherapy for postoperative pathological MP grading. The specific and detailed pathological MP grades were shown in Table1.Table 1
Pathological grading standards.
GradeThe symptom manifestations1st gradeThe infiltrating cells did not change or only a few cells did, and the total number of cells remained the same.2nd gradeThe amount of invasive cancer cells reduced somewhat, but the total amount of cancer cells remained high, with a reduction of no more than 30%.3rd gradeBetween 30% and 90% fewer cancer cells were seen.4th gradeMore than 90% of the cancer cells were eliminated, leaving only a few small clusters and solitary cells.5th gradeThe main tumor bed lacked infiltrating cancer cells, yet there may be mammary carcinoma in situ..


## 2.4. Diagnostic Performance Analysis

The ROC curve is mainly used to assess the classification/diagnosis effect of a certain index and to find the optimal index critical value to achieve the best classification effect. The 1-specificity is the abscissa of the curve, and the sensitivity is the ordinate. The sensitivity and 1-specificity corresponding to each truncated value constitute coordinate points. ROC is obtained when multiple coordinate points are connected. In this study, it was intended to use ROC curve to assess the analytic value of HUSS and CEUS+ ABUS for NAC, and the indexes were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic values. Sensitivity analysis, accuracy analysis, positive predictive value (PPV), and area under ROC curve (AUC) metrics are used to evaluate the efficacy of the combined methods used for the diagnosis and cure for breast cancer.After the diagnostic efficacy of different imaging methods was evaluated by ROC curve, the diagnostic value was comprehensively evaluated by single factor and multiple linear regression.


## 2.5. Curative Effect Evaluation

Prior to and following chemotherapy, the tumor’s largest diameter was measured by HUSS and assessed in accordance with the RECIST evaluation criteria. The efficacy evaluation was graded into progressed disease (PD), partial response (PR), complete response (CR), and stable disease (SD). CR and PR were effective, while SD and PD were ineffective. The details were shown in Table2.Table 2
Efficacy evaluation criteria for solid tumors.
Grading of efficacyStandardCREntirely tumor lesions vanishedPRTarget lesions’ longest diameters added together were decreased by 30%.SDThe lesion changes were between PR and PDPDThe development of new lesions, a 20% rise in the aggregate of the biggest widths of target lesions, or a clear development of nontarget lesions


## 2.6. Statistical Methods

Statistical Package for Social Sciences 22.0 software was used, and the quantity data were articulated in rapports ofmean±standarddeviation (x¯±s). T-test was used for assessment amongst groups. An intragroup comparison was made using analysis of variance. Chi-square test was used for counting data. P<0.05 was statistically significant.


## 3. Results and Discussion

### 3.1. Pathological Examination Results

Pathological examination results of all patients are as shown in Figure1. 100 breast masses in total, including 66 malignant tumors, were identified, as shown in Figure 1. There were 53 invasive ductal carcinoma cases, 5 ductal carcinomas in situ, 3 invasive lobular carcinoma cases, 3 mucinous carcinoma cases, and 2 malignant fluid tumor instances. There were 44 benign lesions including 19 fibroadenomas, 9 adenosis, 8 intraductal papilloma, 3 cysts, 2 benign lobular tumors, 2 inflammation, and 1 hamartoma.Figure 1
Pathological examination results.


### 3.2. Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy

The diagnostic results of breast tumors by the two methods are as shown in Figure2. According to Figure 2, the number of malignant and benign tumors diagnosed by pathology was 66 and 34, respectively. The number of malignant and benign tumors diagnosed by HHUS was 52 and 48, respectively. The number of malignant and benign tumors diagnosed by CEUS+ ABUS was 67 and 33, respectively. There was considerable difference between HHUS diagnosis results and pathological examination results, P<0.05. There was no significant variance between pathological examination and CEUS+ ABUS for P<0.05.Figure 2
Diagnostic results of breast tumor by two methods. Note: compared with pathological examination,∗P<0.05.The diagnostic efficacy of the two methods for breast tumors and ROC breast analysis results are shown in Figure3. According to Figure 3, the sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of HHUS in diagnosing breast tumors were 85.4%, 88.3%, 86.6%, 88.3%, 86.1%, 5.33, and 0.14, respectively. The sensitivity, NPV, accuracy, specificity, PPV, PLR, and NLR of HHUS in diagnosing breast tumors were 97%, 96%, 98.3%, 95.7%, 94.8%, 31.6, and 0.08, respectively. Except for the negative likelihood ratio, CEUS+ ABUS were substantially higher than HHUS in all the diagnostic efficiency indicators of breast tumors. The analysis results under ROC curve of the two methods showed that the area under HHUS curve was 0.87 (97% CI: 0.9-0.8), and the area under CEUS+ ABUS curve was 0.981 (97% CI: 0.8-0.978), demonstrating that the accurateness of the two methods were high. The two methods were compared, P=0.003, suggesting that the difference was statistically significant.Figure 3
Comparison of diagnostic efficiency. Note: (a) diagnostic effectiveness and (b) the ROC curve; compared with HHUS,∗P<0.05.
(a)(b)


### 3.3. Maximum Diameter Assessment of the Malignant Tumor

The results of the maximum diameter of malignant tumor evaluated by the two examination methods are shown in Figure4. Figure 4(a) depicts that the maximum diameter of tumor measured by HHUS and CEUS+ ABUS pathological tests were 2.38±0.8, 2.73±1.01, and 2.77±0.93, respectively. The maximum diameter of tumor measured by HHUS and pathological tests was substantially different (P<0.05). There was no considerable difference between CEUS+ ABUS and pathological examination. According to Figure 4(b), the number of accurate, large, and small tumors measured by HHUS was 32, 15, and 19, respectively, while the number of accurate, large, and small tumors measured by CEUS+ ABUS was 51, 8, and 7, respectively. Obviously, CEUS+ ABUS had substantially higher accuracy in tumor diameter measurement than HHUS, P<0.05.Figure 4
The maximum diameter of malignant tumor. Note: (a) maximum diameter of tumor and (b) accuracy of maximum diameter measurement; compared with pathological examination,P<0.05; compared with HHUS, P<0.05.
(a)(b)


### 3.4. Evaluation of Consistency for Diagnosis of Tumor

The consistency evaluation results of the two methods for tumor diagnosis are as shown in Figure5. In the consistency comparison of the tumor shape, direction, edge, border, internal echo characteristics, posterior echo characteristics, calcification, and BI-RADS grading indicators, Figure 5 shows that the K values of the two methods were, respectively, 0.53, 0.51, 0.66, 0.54, 0.62, 0.66, 0.57, and 0.63. It was obvious that the two methods had good consistency in the above indications.Figure 5
Consistency evaluation of the two methods for tumor diagnosis.


### 3.5. NAC Efficacy

The efficacy evaluation results of the two methods for NAC are as shown in Figure6. Figure 6 show that the HHUS classified 76 cases as invalid and 22 cases as effective. By using CEUS+ ABUS, it was determined that 65 cases were invalid and 33 cases were effective. Pathological diagnosis determined 67 and 31 cases to be invalid and effective, respectively. There was considerable difference between HHUS evaluation results and the pathological diagnosis evaluation results, P<0.05. However, there was little distinction between the outcomes of the CEUS+ ABUS analysis and the analysis of the pathological diagnosis.Figure 6
Efficacy evaluation results of NAC. Note: compared with pathological examination,∗P<0.05.


## 3.1. Pathological Examination Results

Pathological examination results of all patients are as shown in Figure1. 100 breast masses in total, including 66 malignant tumors, were identified, as shown in Figure 1. There were 53 invasive ductal carcinoma cases, 5 ductal carcinomas in situ, 3 invasive lobular carcinoma cases, 3 mucinous carcinoma cases, and 2 malignant fluid tumor instances. There were 44 benign lesions including 19 fibroadenomas, 9 adenosis, 8 intraductal papilloma, 3 cysts, 2 benign lobular tumors, 2 inflammation, and 1 hamartoma.Figure 1
Pathological examination results.


## 3.2. Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy

The diagnostic results of breast tumors by the two methods are as shown in Figure2. According to Figure 2, the number of malignant and benign tumors diagnosed by pathology was 66 and 34, respectively. The number of malignant and benign tumors diagnosed by HHUS was 52 and 48, respectively. The number of malignant and benign tumors diagnosed by CEUS+ ABUS was 67 and 33, respectively. There was considerable difference between HHUS diagnosis results and pathological examination results, P<0.05. There was no significant variance between pathological examination and CEUS+ ABUS for P<0.05.Figure 2
Diagnostic results of breast tumor by two methods. Note: compared with pathological examination,∗P<0.05.The diagnostic efficacy of the two methods for breast tumors and ROC breast analysis results are shown in Figure3. According to Figure 3, the sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of HHUS in diagnosing breast tumors were 85.4%, 88.3%, 86.6%, 88.3%, 86.1%, 5.33, and 0.14, respectively. The sensitivity, NPV, accuracy, specificity, PPV, PLR, and NLR of HHUS in diagnosing breast tumors were 97%, 96%, 98.3%, 95.7%, 94.8%, 31.6, and 0.08, respectively. Except for the negative likelihood ratio, CEUS+ ABUS were substantially higher than HHUS in all the diagnostic efficiency indicators of breast tumors. The analysis results under ROC curve of the two methods showed that the area under HHUS curve was 0.87 (97% CI: 0.9-0.8), and the area under CEUS+ ABUS curve was 0.981 (97% CI: 0.8-0.978), demonstrating that the accurateness of the two methods were high. The two methods were compared, P=0.003, suggesting that the difference was statistically significant.Figure 3
Comparison of diagnostic efficiency. Note: (a) diagnostic effectiveness and (b) the ROC curve; compared with HHUS,∗P<0.05.
(a)(b)


## 3.3. Maximum Diameter Assessment of the Malignant Tumor

The results of the maximum diameter of malignant tumor evaluated by the two examination methods are shown in Figure4. Figure 4(a) depicts that the maximum diameter of tumor measured by HHUS and CEUS+ ABUS pathological tests were 2.38±0.8, 2.73±1.01, and 2.77±0.93, respectively. The maximum diameter of tumor measured by HHUS and pathological tests was substantially different (P<0.05). There was no considerable difference between CEUS+ ABUS and pathological examination. According to Figure 4(b), the number of accurate, large, and small tumors measured by HHUS was 32, 15, and 19, respectively, while the number of accurate, large, and small tumors measured by CEUS+ ABUS was 51, 8, and 7, respectively. Obviously, CEUS+ ABUS had substantially higher accuracy in tumor diameter measurement than HHUS, P<0.05.Figure 4
The maximum diameter of malignant tumor. Note: (a) maximum diameter of tumor and (b) accuracy of maximum diameter measurement; compared with pathological examination,P<0.05; compared with HHUS, P<0.05.
(a)(b)


## 3.4. Evaluation of Consistency for Diagnosis of Tumor

The consistency evaluation results of the two methods for tumor diagnosis are as shown in Figure5. In the consistency comparison of the tumor shape, direction, edge, border, internal echo characteristics, posterior echo characteristics, calcification, and BI-RADS grading indicators, Figure 5 shows that the K values of the two methods were, respectively, 0.53, 0.51, 0.66, 0.54, 0.62, 0.66, 0.57, and 0.63. It was obvious that the two methods had good consistency in the above indications.Figure 5
Consistency evaluation of the two methods for tumor diagnosis.


## 3.5. NAC Efficacy

The efficacy evaluation results of the two methods for NAC are as shown in Figure6. Figure 6 show that the HHUS classified 76 cases as invalid and 22 cases as effective. By using CEUS+ ABUS, it was determined that 65 cases were invalid and 33 cases were effective. Pathological diagnosis determined 67 and 31 cases to be invalid and effective, respectively. There was considerable difference between HHUS evaluation results and the pathological diagnosis evaluation results, P<0.05. However, there was little distinction between the outcomes of the CEUS+ ABUS analysis and the analysis of the pathological diagnosis.Figure 6
Efficacy evaluation results of NAC. Note: compared with pathological examination,∗P<0.05.


## 4. Discussion

Currently, breast cancer is the most prevalent and high female malignant tumor in the globe. It is also the most common cause of death for female malignant tumors. According to the latestGlobal Cancer Report 2020 released by the World Health Organization (WHO), breast cancer has become the number one cancer affecting women. At present, the incidence of new breast cancer in China is 59.0/100,000, which is the first in the incidence of female malignant tumors in China and the mortality rate is the fourth. In China nowadays, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women over 45 [20].At present, NAC is a very important component in the treatment of breast cancer. NAC refers to systemic cytotoxic drug therapy before surgery or radiotherapy for malignant tumors [20]. Studies by some scholars have shown that there is no considerable difference in the survival rate between NAC and postoperative chemotherapy for the breast cancer patients [21].Currently, there are three methods commonly used in clinical diagnosis of breast cancer and evaluation of NAC efficacy, namely, clinical evaluation, imaging evaluation, and pathological evaluation [22]. Although MRI is now regarded as one of the most accurate method to assess the efficacy of NAC, it is expensive and prone to respiratory side effects despite having a high consistency with pathological testing. In addition, the contrast agent used has strong renal toxicity, so its clinical acceptance and promotion is not very high. Additionally, the shrinkage of microvessels is a key indicator that chemotherapy medications slow the rate at which tumor cells proliferate. [22]. Relevant clinical studies showed that the effective standard for breast cancer treatment is not only the death of tumor cells but also the reduction of blood perfusion [23]. The pathological results before and after NAC treatment showed that the internal microvessels of tumors were substantially reduced, indicating that chemotherapy drugs can reduce the blood perfusion of tumor tissues and kill tumor vascular endothelial cells at the same time. When compared to MRI, CEUS size measurement consistency, prediction accuracy, and pathological outcomes are essentially comparable [23]. Compared with HUSS technology, ABUS can continuously collect images, standardize ultrasonic examination, have high repeatability, and avoid interference of human factors [24]. Additionally, it can offer a transverse, sagittal, and coronal image that displays the tumor’s size, shape, edge, growth direction, and internal echo in addition to two-dimensional information like structure distortion and three-dimensional reconstruction stereo diagnostic data to help with diagnosis [25]. In this work, patients with breast cancer who underwent NAC and surgical treatment were studied. All patients underwent pathological examination, HUSS, ABUS, and CEUS examination. At the same time, ROC curve analysis, single factor, multiple linear regressions, and other methods were used to examine and associate the analytic efficacy of each method in the diagnosis of breast cancer and the results of NAC treatment. The results showed that ABUS combined with CEUS had the best efficacy in the judgment of breast cancer, and the results of diagnosis and efficacy evaluation of NAC were the most similar to the results of pathological examination. This indicates that ABUS combined with CEUS had a high application prospect in breast cancer diagnosis and NAC efficacy evaluation.


## 5. Conclusion

The data of 98 breast cancer patients who received NAC and surgical treatment were examined in this study. All the patients underwent pathological examination, HUSS, ABUS, and CEUS examination. At the same time, ROC curve analysis, single factor, multiple linear regressions, and other methods have been used to evaluate and relate the indicative usefulness of each method for the prediction of breast cancer as well as the results of NAC treatment. The results prove that ABUS combined with CEUS has the best efficacy in the diagnosis of breast cancer, and the results of diagnosis and efficacy evaluation of NAC are the most similar to the results of pathological examination. This indicates that ABUS combined with CEUS has a high application prospect in breast cancer diagnosis and NAC efficacy evaluation. In conclusion, this work provides a new idea and basis for clinical diagnosis of breast cancer at early stages and evaluation of the efficacy of NAC. Pathology identified 66 malignant tumors and 34 benign cancers, respectively. 52 aggressive tumors and 48 benign tumors, respectively, were identified by HHUS. The number of malignant and benign tumors diagnosed by CEUS+ ABUS was 67 and 33, respectively. However, due to the limited samples and space, this work still has some limitations. In the future study, we will include more samples to conclude the efficacy of the combined methods for the prognosis of breast cancer.



---

*Source: 3199884-2022-08-03.xml*