The role of enhanced Doppler Ultrasound in differentiation of benign vs. malignant scar lesion after breast surgery for malignancy

Abstract

Scars pose inherent technical problems for optimal mammography. Sonographic evaluation of the vascularity of the lesion with contrast enhancing agents showed improved diagnostic accuracy in the hands of an experienced examiner.

FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis

“…The reasons for exclusion were as follows: (a) the aim of the articles was not to reveal the diagnostic value of US, CT, MRI, SMM, FDG-PET (with or without CT) for identification and characterization of recurrent or metastatic breast cancer ( n  = 817); (b) the reference standard was not used as histopathologic analysis or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months ( n  = 79); (c) data from the article that could be used to construct or calculate TP, FP, TN and FN ( n  = 39); (d) data from the article come from a combination of different imaging modalities that could not be differentiated for assessment of single tests ( n  = 32); (e) article was printed more than once, article with smaller population was excluded ( n  = 2); (f) article that cannot be accessible ( n  = 3); (g) data included less than 10 patients ( n  = 3). A total of 43 studies (Yilmaz et al 2007; Bongers et al 2004; Schmidt et al 2008; Radan et al 2006; Ternier et al 2006; Rissanen et al 1993; Bruneton et al 1986; Lee et al 1993; Gilles et al 1993; Dehdashti et al 1995; Melani et al 1995; Hagay et al 1996; Winehouse et al 1999; Rieber et al 1997; Drew et al 1998; Muüller et al 1998; Moon et al 1998; Cwikla et al 1998; Hathaway et al 1999; Qayyum et al 2000; Stuhrmann et al 2000; Bäz et al 2000; Eubank et al 2001, 2004; Kim et al 2001; Belli et al 2002; Liu et al 2002; Goerres et al 2003; Suárez et al 2002; Kamel et al 2003; Gallowitsch et al 2003; Siggelkow et al 2003; De Cicco et al 2004; Shin et al 2005; Weir et al 2005; Lamuraglia et al 2005; Preda et al 2006; Wolfort et al 2006; Piperkova et al 2007; Rajkovaca et al 2007; Usmani et al 2007; Haug et al 2007; Riebe et al 2007) fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria and were considered for the analysis (Table 1). 15 studies were prospective, 16 studies were retrospective, and the remaining was not defined.…”

“…However, reports in the literature differ with regard to diagnostic accuracy of CT imaging in detecting recurrent and/or metastatic breast cancer, ranging from 40 to 92% and from 41 to 100% for SE and SP, respectively (Radan et al 2006; Ternier et al 2006; Winehouse et al 1999; Bäz et al 2000; Gallowitsch et al 2003; Piperkova et al 2007; Riebe et al 2007; Armington et al 1987). Recently, CT has been the main modality used to evaluate mediastinal nodes in oncology, but as this technique uses size as the main criterion to assess nodal status, it is limited by poor SE.…”

CEUS Helps to Rerate Small Breast Tumors of BI-RADS Category 3 and Category 4

“…Malignant tumors of the breast have been shown to be readily visualized owing to their contrast medium staining [21–25]. This property has been exploited in contrast medium-enhanced magnetic resonance tomography, which is known, however, for its high sensitivity and low specificity in the identification of carcinomas [26, 27].…”

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in oncology

“…The MTT and arrival time seem to be important parameters. In breast cancers, the MTT and arrival time seem to be shorter than in benign masses [ 19 , 32 ] , but an overlap exists. In metastatic liver disease, an increase in arterial supply and intrahepatic shunts results in a reduced transit time in metastatic disease [ 33 , 34 ] .…”