Quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-cystic breast lesions using external perfusion software

• Main Authors: Ernst Michael Jung, Friedrich Jung, Christian Stroszczynski, Isabel Wiesinger
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Nature Publishing Group 2021-09-01
• Series: Scientific Reports
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96137-6

Abstract The aim of this present clinical pilot study is the display of typical perfusion results in patients with solid, non-cystic breast lesions. The lesions were characterized using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with (i) time intensity curve analyses (TIC) and (ii) parametric color maps. The 24 asymptomatic patients included were genetically tested for having an elevated risk for breast cancer. At a center of early detection of familial ovary and breast cancer, those patients received annual MRI and grey-scale ultrasound. If lesions remained unclear or appeared even suspicious, those patients also received CEUS. CEUS was performed after intravenous application of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles. Digital DICOM cine loops were continuously stored for one minute in PACS (picture archiving and communication system). Perfusion images and TIC analyses were calculated off-line with external perfusion software (VueBox). The lesion diameter ranged between 7 and 15 mm (mean 11 ± 3 mm). Five hypoechoic irregular lesions were scars, 6 lesions were benign and 12 lesions were highly suspicious for breast cancer with irregular enhancement at the margins and a partial wash out. In those 12 cases, histopathology confirmed breast cancer. All the suspicious lesions were correctly identified visually. For the perfusion analysis only Peak Enhancement (PE) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) added more information for correctly identifying the lesions. Typical for benign lesions is a prolonged contrast agent enhancement with lower PE and prolonged wash out, while scars are characterized typically by a reduced enhancement in the center. No differences (p = 0.428) were found in PE in the center of benign lesions (64.2 ± 28.9 dB), malignant lesions (88.1 ± 93.6 dB) and a scar (40.0 ± 17.0 dB). No significant differences (p = 0.174) were found for PE values at the margin of benign lesions (96.4 ± 144.9 dB), malignant lesions (54.3 ± 86.2 dB) or scar tissue (203.8 ± 218.9 dB). Significant differences (p < 0.001) were found in PE of the surrounding tissue when comparing benign lesions (33.6 ± 25.2 dB) to malignant lesions (15.7 ± 36.3 dB) and scars (277.2 ± 199.9 dB). No differences (p = 0.821) were found in AUC in the center of benign lesions (391.3 ± 213.7), malignant lesions (314.7 ± 643.9) and a scar (213.1 ± 124.5). No differences (p = 0.601) were found in AUC values of the margin of benign lesions (313.3 ± 372.8), malignant lesions (272.6 ± 566.4) or scar tissue (695.0 ± 360.6). Significant differences (p < 0.01) were found in AUC of the surrounding tissue for benign lesions (151.7 ± 127.8), malignant lesions (177.9 ± 1345.6) and scars (1091 ± 693.3). There were no differences in perfusion evaluation for mean transit time (mTT), rise time (RT) and time to peak (TTP) when comparing the center to the margins and the surrounding tissue. The CEUS perfusion parameters PE and AUC allow a very good assessment of the risk of malignant breast lesions and thus a downgrading of BI-RADS 4 lesions. The use of the external perfusion software (VueBox, Bracco, Milan, Italy) did not lead to any further improvement in the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions and does appears not to have any additional diagnostic value in breast lesions.