Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Ultrasound, MRI, and Combined Examination in Benign and Malignant Breast Tumors

Overview

Journal Front Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2025 Feb 14

PMID 39949747

Authors

Dianpei Ma

Changliang Wang

Jie Li

Xiaohan Hao

Yun Zhu

Zhizhen Gao

Chun Liu

Changfan Luo

Yu Huang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: To compare the diagnostic effectiveness of ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and their combined application in distinguishing between benign and malignant breast tumors, with particular emphasis on evaluating diagnostic performance in different breast densities-fatty breast tissue, where fat predominates, and dense breast tissue, which contains a significant amount of fibroglandular tissue.

Materials And Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 185 patients with breast tumors, including 90 malignant and 95 benign cases. All patients underwent both US and MRI examinations within one week prior to surgery. The diagnostic accuracy of US, MRI, and their combined use in differentiating benign and malignant tumors was evaluated.

Results: The combined examination demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and negative predictive value (NPV) (0.904, 90%, 90.4%), outperforming US (0.830, 73.3%, 78.6%) and MRI (0.897, 89.7%, 88.8%). DeLong test results revealed statistically significant differences in AUC between US and MRI, as well as between US and the combined examination (P < 0.05). However, the difference in AUC between MRI and the combined examination was not significant (P = 0.939). In patients with fatty breast tissue, no significant differences were found between MRI and US, or between MRI and the combined examination (P = 0.708 and P = 0.317, respectively). However, the diagnostic performance between US and the combined examination was statistically significant (P < 0.05). For patients with dense breast tissue, the differences in diagnostic performance between US and MRI, and between US and the combined examination, were significant (P < 0.05), while the difference between MRI and the combined examination was not significant (P = 0.317).

Conclusion: MRI and combined examination methods significantly enhance the ability to differentiate benign and malignant breast tumors and provide important clinical value for early breast cancer detection.

References

Kuhl C, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild H, Hilgers R, Bieling H . Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(22):2304-10. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.5386. View

Onishi N, Sadinski M, Hughes M, Ko E, Gibbs P, Gallagher K . Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI may generate prognostic imaging markers of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2020; 22(1):58. PMC: 7254650. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01292-9. View

Zhang Y, Chen J, Mi D, Ling J, Li H, He P . Discovery of YH677 as a cancer stemness inhibitor that suppresses triple-negative breast cancer growth and metastasis by regulating the TGFβ signaling pathway. Cancer Lett. 2023; 560:216142. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2023.216142. View

Luiten J, Voogd A, Luiten E, Duijm L . Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017; 166(1):307-314. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4412-4. View

Price E, Hargreaves J, Lipson J, Sickles E, Brenner R, Lindfors K . The California breast density information group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation. Radiology. 2013; 269(3):887-92. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131217. View

Xiao Q, Xia M, Tang W, Zhao H, Chen Y, Zhong J . The lipid metabolism remodeling: A hurdle in breast cancer therapy. Cancer Lett. 2023; 582:216512. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2023.216512. View

Verdial F, Bartek M, Anderson B, Javid S . Genetic testing and surgical treatment after breast cancer diagnosis: Results from a national online cohort. J Surg Oncol. 2021; 123(7):1504-1512. PMC: 8127342. DOI: 10.1002/jso.26372. View

Comstock C, Gatsonis C, Newstead G, Snyder B, Gareen I, Bergin J . Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening. JAMA. 2020; 323(8):746-756. PMC: 7276668. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.0572. View

Siegel R, Miller K, Wagle N, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023; 73(1):17-48. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21763. View

10.

Wong J, Chai J, Yeoh Y, Mohamed Riza N, Liu J, Teo Y . Cost effectiveness analysis of a polygenic risk tailored breast cancer screening programme in Singapore. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):379. PMC: 8066868. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06396-2. View

11.

Hooley R, Greenberg K, Stackhouse R, Geisel J, Butler R, Philpotts L . Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012; 265(1):59-69. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120621. View

12.

Gultekin M, Celik Yabul F, Temur H, Sari L, Yilmaz T, Toprak H . Papillary Lesions of the Breast: Addition of DWI and TIRM Sequences to Routine Breast MRI Could Help in Differentiation Benign from Malignant. Curr Med Imaging. 2022; 18(9):962-969. DOI: 10.2174/1573405618666220218101931. View

13.

Chen J, Huang Z, Luo H, Li G, Ding Z, Tian H . Development and validation of nomograms using photoacoustic imaging and 2D ultrasound to predict breast nodule benignity and malignancy. Postgrad Med J. 2024; 100(1183):309-318. DOI: 10.1093/postmj/qgad146. View

14.

Yamaguchi K, Nakazono T, Egashira R, Fukui S, Baba K, Hamamoto T . Time to enhancement of breast lesions and normal breast parenchyma in light of menopausal status and menstrual cycle for ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using compressed sensing. Magn Reson Imaging. 2022; 96:102-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2022.11.006. View

15.

Kataoka M, Honda M, Ohashi A, Yamaguchi K, Mori N, Goto M . Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI of the Breast: How Is It Used?. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2022; 21(1):83-94. PMC: 9199976. DOI: 10.2463/mrms.rev.2021-0157. View

16.

Bernardo G, Le Noci V, Ottaviano E, De Cecco L, Camisaschi C, Guglielmetti S . Reduction of Staphylococcus epidermidis in the mammary tumor microbiota induces antitumor immunity and decreases breast cancer aggressiveness. Cancer Lett. 2022; 555:216041. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2022.216041. View

17.

Salameh J, Kashif Al-Ghita M, McInnes M, Seely J . Screening with Breast Cancer Mammography: Re-Evaluation of Current Evidence. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2023; 74(3):596-599. DOI: 10.1177/08465371221148134. View

18.

Rahmat K, Ab Mumin N, Ramli Hamid M, Hamid S, Ng W . MRI Breast: Current Imaging Trends, Clinical Applications, and Future Research Directions. Curr Med Imaging. 2022; 18(13):1347-1361. DOI: 10.2174/1573405618666220415130131. View

19.

Dan Q, Zheng T, Liu L, Sun D, Chen Y . Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in Resource-Limited Settings: Current Practice and Future Directions. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(7). PMC: 10093585. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15072112. View

20.

Wolff A, Hammond M, Allison K, Harvey B, Mangu P, Bartlett J . Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018; 142(11):1364-1382. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0902-SA. View