Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Is there a role for contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the detection and biopsy of MRI only visible breast lesions? Cover

Is there a role for contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the detection and biopsy of MRI only visible breast lesions?

Radiology and Oncology
Volume 51 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)
By: Aki Nykänen,  Otso Arponen,  Anna Sutela,  Ritva Vanninen and  Mazen Sudah  
Open Access
|Nov 2017

References

  1. Breslin TM, Banerjee M, Gust C, Birkmeyer NJ. Trends in advanced imaging use for women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Cancer 2013; 119: 1251-6. 10.1002/cncr.2783823212691
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 290-302. 10.3322/caac.2002819679690
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Teifke A, Lehr HA, Vomweg TW, Hlawatsch A, Thelen M. Outcome analysis and rational management of enhancing lesions incidentally detected on contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 655-62. 10.2214/ajr.181.3.181065512933456
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Dixon JM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and metaanalysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5640-9. 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.5756
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg 2013; 257: 249-55. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827a8d1723187751
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Arponen O, Masarwah A, Sutela A, Taina M, Könönen M, Sironen R, et al. Incidentally detected enhancing lesions found in breast MRI: analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2 signal intensity significantly improves specificity. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 4361-70. 10.1007/s0033-016-4326-227114285
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. Spick C, Baltzer PA. Diagnostic utility of second-look US for breast lesions identified at MR imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2014; 273: 401-9. 10.1148/radiol.1414047425119022
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Hollowell L, Price E, Arasu V, Wisner D, Hylton N, Joe B. Lesion morphology on breast MRI affects targeted ultrasound correlation rate. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 1279-84. 10.1007/s00330-014-3517-y25500714
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Newburg AR, Chhor CM, Young Lin LL, Heller SL, Gillman J, Toth HK, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-directed ultrasound imaging of non-mass enhancement in the breast: Outcomes and frequency of malignancy. J Ultrasound Med 2017; 36: 493-504. 10.7863/ultra.16.0300128108994
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Gao Y, Bagadiya NR, Jardon ML, Heller SL, Melsaether AN, Toth HB, et al. Outcomes of preoperative MRI-guided needle localization of nonpalpable mammographically occult breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 676-84. 10.2214/AJR.15.1591327275652
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. Wilson SR, Greenbaum LD, Goldberg BB. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: what is the evidence and what are the obstacles? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 55-60. 10.2214/AJR.09.255319542395
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. Buckley DL, Drew PJ, Mussurakis S, Monson JR, Horsman A. Microvessel density of invasive breast cancer assessed by dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 461-4.10.1002/jmri.18800703029170027
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Giesel FL, Choyke PL, Mehndiratta A, Zechmann CM, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Kayser K. Pharmacokinetic analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma-initial results of tumor microcirculation and its correlation to microvessel density (CD-34). Acad Radiol 2008; 15: 563-70. 10.1016/j.acra.2007.12.01418423312
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. Knopp MV, Weiss E, Sinn HP, Mattern J, Junkermann H, Radeleff J, et al. Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 260-6.10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<;260::AID-JMRI6>3.0.CO;2-710508285
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Hayes C, Padhani AR, Leach MO. Assessing changes in tumour vascular function using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. NMR Biomed 2002; 15: 154-63.1187091110.1002/nbm.756
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. Jansen SA, Paunesku T, Fan X, Woloschak GE, Vogt S, Conzen SD, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: X-ray fluorescence microscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging reveals gadolinium uptake within neoplastic mammary ducts in a murine model. Radiology 2009; 253: 399-406. 10.1148/radiol.2533082026
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Giorgio R, Roberta C. Enhancing the role of ultrasound with contrast agents. Milan: Springer; 2006.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. Du J, Wang L, Wam CF, Hua J, Fang H, Chen J, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast lesions: combined utility of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3890-9. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.09.00423062280
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Jiang YX, Liu H, Liu JB, Zhu QL, Sun Q, Chang XY. Breast tumor size assessment: comparison of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33: 1873-81. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2007.06.00217686569
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Corcioni B, Santilli L, Quercia S, Zamagni C, Santini D, Taffurelli M, et al. Contrast-enhanced US and MRI for assessing the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Ultrasound 2008; 11: 143-50. 10.1016/j.jus.2008.09.00723396645
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Fujisawa T, Hirakata T, Yanagita Y, Iijima M, Horikoshi H, Takeuchi K, et al. The detection of pCR after PST by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2013; 20: 75-82. 10.1007/s12282-011-0311-422203579
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Rautiainen S, Sudah M, Joukainen S, Sironen R, Vanninen R, Sutela A. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound -guided axillary lymph node core biopsy: Diagnostic accuracy in preoperative staging of invasive breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84: 2130-6. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.00626343047
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, Decker T, Federico M, Gilbert FJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 1296-316. 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Abe H, Schmidt RA, Shah RN, Shimauchi A, Kulkarni K, Sennett CA, et al. MR-directed (“Second-Look”) ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sonographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 370-7. 10.2214/AJR.09.270720093598
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Westwood M, Joore M, Grutters J, Redekop K, Armstrong N, Lee K, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue(R) (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health TechnolAssess 2013; 17: 1-243. 10.3310/hta17160
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. Heijblom M, Klaase JM, van den Engh FM, van Leeuwen TG, Steenberg W, Manohar S. Imaging tumor vascularization for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2011; 10: 607-23. 10.7785/tcrt.2012.50022722066601
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Santamaria G, Velasco M, Farrús B, Caparrós FX, Fernández PL. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI reveals the extent and the microvascular pattern of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2013; 19: 402-10. 10.1111/tbj.1213523758454
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Chevrier MC, David J, Khoury ME, Lalonde L, Labelle M, Trop I. Breast biopsies under magnetic resonance imaging guidance: Challenges of an essential but imperfect technique. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2016; 45: 193-204. 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.07.00226272705
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Choi HY, Kim SM, Jang M, Yun BL, Kim SW, Kang E, et al. MRI-guided intervention for breast lesions using the freehand technique in a 3.0-T closedbore MRI scanner: feasibility and initial results. Korean J Radiol 2013; 14: 171-8. 10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.171
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2017-0049 | Journal eISSN: 1581-3207 | Journal ISSN: 1318-2099
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 386 - 392
Submitted on: Aug 17, 2017
|
Accepted on: Oct 2, 2017
|
Published on: Nov 29, 2017
Published by: Association of Radiology and Oncology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
additional lesions,
MRI,
MRI-guided interventions,
contrast-enhanced ultrasound,
CEUS,
CEUS-guided interventions
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Internal medicine,
Haematology, oncology,
Radiology

© 2017 Aki Nykänen, Otso Arponen, Anna Sutela, Ritva Vanninen, Mazen Sudah, published by Association of Radiology and Oncology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 51 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)Next article