Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 3228–3236 | Cite as

Correlation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound kinetics with prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer

  • Botond K. SzabóEmail author
  • Ariel Saracco
  • Ervin Tánczos
  • Peter Aspelin
  • Karin Leifland
  • Brigitte Wilczek
  • Rimma Axelsson
Breast

Abstract

Objectives

To correlate contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) kinetic parameters with traditional and molecular prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer.

Methods

Seventy-five invasive breast cancers were evaluated with contrast harmonic imaging after the injection of a bolus dose of 2.4 ml sulphur hexafluoride microbubble contrast agent. The lognormal function was used for quantitative analysis of kinetic data. These parameters correlated with traditional prognostic factors (tumour size, histological type, tumour grade, axillary lymph node status) and immunohistochemical biomarkers (ER, PR and HER2 status).

Results

Statistically significant correlation was found between time-to-peak and tumour grade (P value = 0.023), PR status (P value = 0.042) and axillary node status (P value = 0.025). Wash-out ratio, measured at 21 s was significantly associated with ER status (P value = 0.042) and PR status (P value = 0.026).

Conclusions

Invasive breast carcinomas exhibiting earlier peak enhancement and faster elimination of microbubble contrast agent at CEUS are found to be associated with established predictors of poor prognosis.

Key Points

• Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can potentially determine the aggressiveness of invasive breast cancers.

• Early peak enhancement and accelerated wash-out at CEUS suggest poor prognosis.

• CEUS kinetics are similar to that of DCE-MRI in assessing tumour aggressiveness.

Keywords

Breast cancer Ultrasound Contrast agents Kinetics Prognosis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Saracco has received honoraria from Philips for lectures on contrast-enhanced ultrasound.

There is an overlap in patient cohort with an already published paper: Saracco A, Szabó BK, Aspelin P, Leifland K, Wilczek B, Celebioglu F, Axelsson R (2012) Differentiation between benign and malignant breast tumors using kinetic features of real-time harmonic contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Acta Radiol 53:382-388.

The aims and methods of the two papers are different, and there is an overlap in 75 malignant tumours. The CEUS kinetics were analysed with a more advanced mathematical modelling, and we correlated CEUS enhancement kinetics with prognostic factors in the recent study, whereas the purpose of the already published paper was to find out whether CEUS kinetics are able to differentiate between benign and malignant tumours.

References

  1. 1.
    Skaane P, Sager EM, Olsen JB et al (1999) Diagnostic value of ultrasonography in patients with palpable mammographically noncalcified breast tumors. Acta Radiol 40:163–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kedar RP, Cosgrove D, McCready VR, Bamber JC, Carter ER (1996) Microbubble contrast agent for color Doppler US: effect on breast masses. Work in progress. Radiology 198:679–686PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delorme S, Krix M (2006) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for examining tumor biology. Cancer Imaging 6:148–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretière J (2006) Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging 31:188–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee T, Purdie TG, Stewart E (2003) CT imaging of angiogenesis. Q J Nucl Med 47:171–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griebel J, Mayr NA, de Vries A et al (1997) Assessment of tumor microcirculation: a new role of dynamic contrast MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:111–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson H, Price P, Blomley M, Leach MO, Workman P, Cancer Research Campaign PK/PD Technologies Advisory Committee (2001) Measuring changes in human tumour vasculature in response to therapy using functional imaging techniques. Br J Cancer 85:1085–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balleyguier C, Opolon P, Mathieu MC et al (2009) New potential and applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the breast: own investigations and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol 69:14–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang M, Niermann KJ, Lyshchik A, Fleischer AC (2009) Sonographic assessment of tumor response: from in vivo models to clinical applications. Ultrasound Q 25:175–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szabó BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Tot T, Boné B (2003) Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol 13:2425–2435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang Y, Kwon KH, Choi DL et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer and correlation with prognostic factors. Acta Radiol 50:990–998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’Onofrio M, Zamboni GA, Malagò R et al (2009) Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: is the enhancement pattern at contrast-enhanced ultrasonography a pre-operative prognostic factor? Ultrasound Med Biol 35:1929–1937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Massironi S, Conte D, Sciola V et al (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in evaluating hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine tumours. Dig Liver Dis 42:635–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ouyang Q, Chen L, Zhao H, Xu R, Lin Q (2010) Detecting metastasis of lymph nodes and predicting aggressiveness in patients with breast carcinomas. J Ultrasound Med 29:343–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strouthos C, Lampaskis M, Sboros V, McNeilly A, Averkiou M (2010) Indicator dilution models for the quantification of microvascular blood flow with bolus administration of ultrasound contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 57:1296–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saracco A, Szabo B, Aspelin P et al (2012) Differentiation between benign and malignant breast tumors using kinetic features of real-time harmonic contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Acta Radiol 53:382–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah SS, Ketterling RP, Goetz MP et al (2010) Impact of American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations on HER2 interpretation in breast cancer. Hum Pathol 41:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carmeliet P (2005) Angiogenesis in life, disease and medicine. Nature 438:932–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Folkman J (1971) Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med 285:1182–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhl CK (2000) MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 10:46–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caproni N, Marchisio F, Pecchi A et al (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 20:1384–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao H, Xu R, Ouyang Q, Chen L, Dong B, Huihua Y (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is helpful in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 73:288–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uzzan B, Nicolas P, Cucherat M, Perret G (2004) Microvessel density as a prognostic factor in women with breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cancer Res 64:2941–2955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delli Carpini J, Carpini JD, Karam AK, Montgomery L (2010) Vascular endothelial growth factor and its relationship to the prognosis and treatment of breast, ovarian, and cervical cancer. Angiogenesis 13:43–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knopp MV, Weiss E, Sinn HP et al (1999) Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:260–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Frouge C, Guinebretière JM, Contesso G, Di Paola R, Bléry M (1994) Correlation between contrast enhancement in dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast and tumor angiogenesis. Invest Radiol 29:1043–1049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S et al (1996) Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 200:639–649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boné B, Szabó BK, Perbeck LG, Veress B, Aspelin P (2003) Can contrast-enhanced MR imaging predict survival in breast cancer? Acta Radiol 44:373–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pickles MD, Manton DJ, Lowry M, Turnbull LW (2009) Prognostic value of pre-treatment DCE-MRI parameters in predicting disease free and overall survival for breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol 71:498–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Du J, Li F, Fang H, Xia J, Zhu C (2008) Correlation of real-time gray scale contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression for assessment of angiogenesis in breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med 27:821–831PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Botond K. Szabó
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ariel Saracco
    • 2
  • Ervin Tánczos
    • 3
    • 4
  • Peter Aspelin
    • 2
  • Karin Leifland
    • 5
  • Brigitte Wilczek
    • 5
  • Rimma Axelsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary
  2. 2.Division of Medical Imaging and Technology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC)Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Bolyai Institute, Faculty of Science and InformaticsUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary
  4. 4.Department of Medical Physics and Informatics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary
  5. 5.Division of Radiology, Department of Breast ImagingUnilabs Capio S:T Göran HospitalStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations