Radiology, Vol 208, 485-489, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Effects of a microbubble contrast agent on breast tumors: computer- assisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US--early experience

S Huber, T Helbich, J Kettenbach, W Dock, I Zuna and S Delorme
Department of Radiology, Lainz Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

PURPOSE: To evaluate objectively the effects of a microbubble contrast agent on the color Doppler ultrasound (US) examination of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients aged 23-71 years underwent color Doppler US before and after intravenous injection of a microbubble contrast agent. A 3-minute computer-assisted assessment of the color pixel density (CPD) was used to evaluate objectively the increase in the number of color Doppler US signals, the transit time of the microbubble bolus, and the potential additional differential diagnostic information. RESULTS: Peak CPD at contrast agent-enhanced color Doppler US was 14.3% +/- 8.1 (mean +/- 1 standard deviation) for carcinomas and 9.3% +/- 4.9 for benign lesions (P = .04). The time to peak enhancement was shorter in carcinomas (38 seconds +/- 20) than in benign tumors (71 seconds +/- 48, P = .02). Final CPD was close or equal to baseline values. With the median of 13% for peak CPD as a threshold, the sensitivity for this parameter was 55%, the specificity was 79%, and the accuracy was 62% (P = .04). For a median time to peak of 50 seconds, the sensitivity was 84%, the specificity was 57%, and the accuracy was 76%. CONCLUSION: After microbubble contrast agent injection, carcinomas and benign lesions behave differently in degree, onset, and duration of Doppler US enhancement. High interindividual variability and temporal variations in the Doppler US signal still limit the value of these criteria for prospective diagnosis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Marret, S. Sauget, B. Giraudeau, M. Brewer, J. Ranger-Moore, G. Body, and F. Tranquart Contrast-Enhanced Sonography Helps in Discrimination of Benign From Malignant Adnexal Masses J. Ultrasound Med., December 1, 2004; 23(12): 1629 - 1639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Ozdemir, K. Kilic, H. Ozdemir, C. Yucel, S. Andac, and M. Colak Contrast-Enhanced Power Doppler Sonography in Breast Lesions: Effect on Differential Diagnosis After Mammography and Gray Scale Sonography J. Ultrasound Med., February 1, 2004; 23(2): 183 - 195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-R. Orden, J. S. Jurvelin, and P. P. Kirkinen Kinetics of a US Contrast Agent in Benign and Malignant Adnexal Tumors Radiology, February 1, 2003; 226(2): 405 - 410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. J. Halpern, F. Frauscher, M. Rosenberg, and L. G. Gomella Directed Biopsy During Contrast-Enhanced Sonography of the Prostate Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2002; 178(4): 915 - 919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Stuhrmann, R. Aronius, and M. Schietzel Tumor Vascularity of Breast Lesions: Potentials and Limits of Contrast-Enhanced Doppler Sonography Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2000; 175(6): 1585 - 1589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. K. Moon, J.-G. Im, D.-Y. Noh, and M. C. Han Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: Evaluation with Power Doppler US and a Microbubble Contrast Agent-Initial Experience Radiology, October 1, 2000; 217(1): 240 - 246. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. Winehouse, M. Douek, W. Lees, S. Huber, I. Zuna, and S. Delorme ROC Curve Analysis in the Evaluation of Contrast-enhanced Color Doppler US • Dr Huber and colleagues respond: Radiology, September 1, 1999; 212(3): 911 - 912. [Full Text]

				R. L. Ellis, K. L. Weind, S. Huber, and S. Delorme Differentiation of Benign versus Malignant Breast Disease • Ms Weind responds: • Drs Huber and Delorme respond: Radiology, February 1, 1999; 210(3): 878 - 880. [Full Text]