4.1 Article

Perfusion contrast-enhanced ultrasound to predict early lymph-node metastasis in breast cancer

Journal

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 145-153

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11604-018-0792-6

Keywords

Breast cancer; Lymph-node metastasis; Ultrasound; Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; Microbubble

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [26461783, 15K09913]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09913, 26461783] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo evaluate whether quantitative analysis of perfusion contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CE-US) could predict early lymph-node (LN) metastasis in clinically node-negative breast cancer.Materials and methodsIn this prospective study, 64 breast cancer patients were selected for perfusion CE-US imaging. Regions of interest were placed where the strongest and weakest signal increases were found to obtain peak intensities (PIs; PImax and PImin, respectively) for time-intensity curve analyzes. The PI difference and PI ratio were calculated as follows: PI difference=PImax-PImin; PI ratio=PImax/PImin.ResultsForty-seven cases were histologically diagnosed as negative for LN metastasis and 17 were positive. There was a significant difference in PImin and the PI ratio between the LN-negative and -positive metastasis groups (p=0.0053 and 0.0082, respectively). Receiver-operating curve analysis revealed that the area under the curve of PImin and the PI ratio were 0.73 and 0.72, respectively. The most effective threshold for the PI ratio was 1.52, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 59% (10/17), 87% (41/47), 63% (10/16), and 85% (41/48), respectively.ConclusionsParameters from the quantitative analysis of perfusion CE-US imaging showed significant differences between the LN-negative and -positive metastasis groups in clinically node-negative breast cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available