Microvascular architecture of breast lesions: Evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasonographic micro flow imaging

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 833-842

  Du, Jing ^a   Li, Feng Hua ^a   Fang, Hua ^a   Xia, Jian Guo ^a   Zhu, Cai Xia ^a  

^a SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (China)

Author keywords

Breast lesion; Contrast enhanced ultrasonography; Micro flow imaging; Receiver operating characteristic curve; Vascular architecture

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURE; DIAGNOSIS; FORESTRY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; SHELLFISH; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

BREAST LESION; CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASONOGRAPHY; MICRO FLOW IMAGING; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES; VASCULAR ARCHITECTURE;

BLOOD VESSELS;

SONOVUE;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; ECHOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; GRAY SCALE ECHOGRAPHY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MICROFLOW IMAGING; MICROVASCULATURE; MORPHOLOGY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 46249117575     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2008.27.6.833     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Tuncbilek N, Unlu E, Karakas HM, Cakir B, Ozyilmaz F. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance mammography. Breast J 2003; 9:403-408.
2. Stuhrmann M, Aronius R, Schietzel M. Tumor vascularity of breast lesions: potentials and limits of contrast-enhanced Doppler sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 1585-1589.
3. Less JR, Skalak TC, Sevick EM, Jain RK. Microvascular architecture in a mammary carcinoma: branching patterns and vessel dimensions. Cancer Res 1991; 51:265-273.
4. Delorme S, Knopp MV. Non-invasive vascular imaging: assessing tumour vascularity. Eur Radiol 1998; 8:517-527.
5. Hochmuth A, Boehm T, Bitzer C, Fleck M, Schneider A, Kaiser WA. Differentiation of breast masses using 3-D sonographic and echo-enhancer-based evaluation of the vascular pattern: initial experiences. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:845-851.
6. Kettenbach J, Helbich TH, Huber S, Zuna I, Dock W. Computer-assisted quantitative assessment of power Doppler US: effects of microbubble contrast agent in the differentiation of breast tumors. Eur J Radiol 2005; 53:238-244.
7. Yang H, Liu GJ, Lu MD, Xu HX, Xie XY. Evaluation of the vascular architecture of hepatocellular carcinoma by micro flow imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26:461-467.
8. Zhao YZ, Luo YK, Zhang Y, Mei XG, Tang J. Property and contrast-enhancement effects of lipid ultrasound contrast agent: a preliminary experimental study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31:537-543.
9. Metz CE. LABMRMC 1.0B software. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Department of Radiology. Available at: http://www.radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/ KRL_ROC/soft ware_index.htm. Accessed March 2, 2005.
10. Xu HX, Liu GJ, Lu MD, et al. Characterization of small focal liver lesions using real-time contrast-enhanced sonography: diagnostic performance analysis in 200 patients. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25:349-361.
11. Okamoto Y, Kawamoto H, Takaki A, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography depicts small tumor vessels for the evaluation of pancreatic tumors. Eur J Radiol 2007; 61:163-169.
12. Numata K, Tanaka K, Kiba T, et al. Contrast-enhanced, wide-band harmonic gray scale imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with helical computed tomographic findings. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20:89-98.
13. Mitterberger M, Pelzer A, Colleselli D, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for diagnosis of prostate cancer and kidney lesions. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64:231-238.
14. Metoki R, Moriyasu F, Kamiyama N, et al. Quantification of hepatic parenchymal blood flow by contrast ultrasonography with flash-replenishment imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006; 32:1459-1466.
15. Raza S, Baum JK. Solid breast lesions: evaluation with power Doppler US. Radiology 1997; 203:164-168.
16. Metz S, Daldrup-Unk HE, Richter T, et al. Detection and quantification of breast tumor necrosis with MR imaging: value of the necrosis-avid contrast agent Gadophrin-3. Acad Radiol 2003; 10:484-490.
17. Brown LF, Berse B, Jackman RW, et al. Expression of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) and its receptors in breast cancer. Hum Pathol 1995; 26: 86-91.
18. Lichtenbeld HC, Barendsz-Janson AF, van Essen H, Struijker Boudier H, Griffioen AW, Hillen HF. Angiogenic potential of malignant and non-malignant human breast tissues in an in vivo angiogenesis model. Int J Cancer 1998; 77:455-459.
19. Moriyasu F, Lu MD, Chen MH, et al. Comparison of microvascular morphological changes in hepatocellular carcinomas using micro flow imaging with pathologic findings in a multicenter trial [abstract]. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; November 2005; Chicago, IL.
20. Chang RF, Huang SF, Moon WK, Lee YH, Chen DR. Solid breast masses: neural network analysis of vascular features at three-dimensional power Doppler US for benign or malignant classification. Radiology 2007; 243:56-62.
21. Schroeder RJ, Maeurer J, Vogl TJ, et al. D-galactose-based signal-enhanced color Doppler sonography of breast tumors and tumorlike lesions. Invest Radiol 1999; 34:109-115.
22. Moon WK, Im JG, Noh DY, Han MC. Nonpalpable breast lesions: evaluation with power Doppler US and a microbubble contrast agent - initial experience. Radiology 2000; 217:240-246.