A preliminary study on the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and micro-flow imaging for detecting blood flow signals in breast cancer patients.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Gland surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-30 Epub Date: 2024-11-26 DOI:10.21037/gs-24-264
Junjie Dong, Qiang Chen, Huiyang Wang, Hailing He, Ting Luo, Tianan Jiang
{"title":"A preliminary study on the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and micro-flow imaging for detecting blood flow signals in breast cancer patients.","authors":"Junjie Dong, Qiang Chen, Huiyang Wang, Hailing He, Ting Luo, Tianan Jiang","doi":"10.21037/gs-24-264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The distribution and morphology of mass microvessels could affect the diagnostic accuracy of breast cancer (BC). The aim of our study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and micro-flow imaging (CEUS-MFI), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) in the assessment of mass microvasculature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 106 patients with 106 breast masses categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 were enrolled in our prospective study. CEUS-MFI, CEUS and conventional CDFI were used to estimate the microvascular morphology and distribution types of breast lesions, respectively. Pathological results were considered the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CEUS-MFI technique applied in microvascular morphology and distribution types resulted in a higher resolution in breast lesions than the CEUS and CDFI techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-MFI were 94.4%, 85.3%, and 91.5%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS were 88.9%, 82.4%, and 86.8%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the CDFI were 61.1%, 76.5% and 66.0%, respectively. There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CEUS (P=0.01). There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CDFI (P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study supports CEUS-MFI is a new and promising imaging method for visualizing microvasculature in breast masses. CEUS-MFI improves the diagnostic capacity for BC.</p>","PeriodicalId":12760,"journal":{"name":"Gland surgery","volume":"13 11","pages":"2098-2106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635578/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gland surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-24-264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The distribution and morphology of mass microvessels could affect the diagnostic accuracy of breast cancer (BC). The aim of our study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and micro-flow imaging (CEUS-MFI), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) in the assessment of mass microvasculature.

Methods: A total of 106 patients with 106 breast masses categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 were enrolled in our prospective study. CEUS-MFI, CEUS and conventional CDFI were used to estimate the microvascular morphology and distribution types of breast lesions, respectively. Pathological results were considered the gold standard.

Results: CEUS-MFI technique applied in microvascular morphology and distribution types resulted in a higher resolution in breast lesions than the CEUS and CDFI techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-MFI were 94.4%, 85.3%, and 91.5%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS were 88.9%, 82.4%, and 86.8%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the CDFI were 61.1%, 76.5% and 66.0%, respectively. There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CEUS (P=0.01). There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CDFI (P<0.001).

Conclusions: This study supports CEUS-MFI is a new and promising imaging method for visualizing microvasculature in breast masses. CEUS-MFI improves the diagnostic capacity for BC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对比增强超声波和微血流成像检测乳腺癌患者血流信号诊断价值的初步研究。
背景:肿块微血管的分布和形态影响乳腺癌的诊断准确性。本研究的目的是比较超声造影增强和微血管成像(CEUS- mfi)、超声造影增强(CEUS)和彩色多普勒血流成像(CDFI)在肿块微血管评估中的价值。方法:我们的前瞻性研究共纳入106例106个乳腺肿块,这些肿块被分类为乳腺成像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)第4类。采用超声造影- mfi、超声造影和常规CDFI分别评估乳腺病变微血管形态和分布类型。病理结果被认为是金标准。结果:超声造影- mfi技术对乳腺微血管形态和分布类型的诊断分辨率高于超声造影和CDFI技术。CEUS-MFI的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为94.4%、85.3%和91.5%。超声造影的敏感性为88.9%,特异性为82.4%,准确性为86.8%。CDFI的敏感性为61.1%,特异性为76.5%,准确性为66.0%。CEUS- mfi与CEUS的准确率差异有统计学意义(P=0.01)。结论:本研究支持超声- mfi是一种新的、有前途的乳腺肿块微血管显像方法。超声- mfi提高了对BC的诊断能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gland surgery
Gland surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
113
期刊介绍: Gland Surgery (Gland Surg; GS, Print ISSN 2227-684X; Online ISSN 2227-8575) being indexed by PubMed/PubMed Central, is an open access, peer-review journal launched at May of 2012, published bio-monthly since February 2015.
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of explainable machine learning models for the prediction of survival in patients with M1 breast cancer. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in adrenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age-specific differences in parathyroidectomy after implementation of guidelines for primary hyperparathyroidism. Optimizing perioperative care in autologous breast reconstruction: a narrative review. Near infrared autofluorescence for parathyroid detection during thyroid and parathyroid surgery: a valuable medical device but not a substitute for surgical experience and volume.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1