Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Shao, Si-Hui | Li, Chun-Xiao | Yao, Ming-Hua | Li, Gang | Li, Xing | Wu, Rong; *
Affiliations: Department of Ultrasound, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Rong Wu, Department of Ultrasound, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.100 Haining Road, Hongkou District, Shanghai 200080, China. Tel.: +86 021 63240090; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: OBJECTIVE:To identify the efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in re-evaluating masses with inconsistent Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) on mammography (MG) and conventional ultrasound (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 637 breast lesions were evaluated with MG, US, and CEUS within 6 months and assessed as BI-RADS MG and US. CEUS was used as an additional screening to rerate BI-RADS US according to a five-point system. Lesions were divided into consistent or inconsistent group on the basis of BI-RADS MG and US assessment. The performance of MG, US, and CEUS in the overall and inconsistent group as well as the clinicopathological differences between consistent and inconsistent group were compared using Z test, Mann–Whitney U test, and t-test. RESULTS:The respective AUCs of MG and US were 0.742, 0.843 for overall group and 0.412, 0.789 for inconsistent group. The corresponding values of rerated CEUS BI-RADS were 0.958 and 0.950, which were significantly prior to those of MG and US (p < 0.001). Younger age, negative lymph node status, and dense breast were significantly associated with inconsistent group. CONCLUSION:Incorporation of CEUS to re-evaluate lesions can improve the diagnostic efficacy comparing to MG or US alone especially when disagreement occurred.
Keywords: Contrast enhanced ultrasound, conventional ultrasound, inconsistent BI-RADS MG and BI-RADS US assessment
DOI: 10.3233/CH-190729
Journal: Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 463-473, 2020
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]