Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:20:47.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Advanced applications of breast ultrasound

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

By
E Svensson William  and
R Stewart Victoria
Edited by
Michael J. Michell
Michael J. Michell
Affiliation:
King's College Hospital, London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The strength of ultrasound (US) is its use of non-ionizing radiation, high resolution, low cost, and high sensitivity and specificity when used for solving focal symptomatic problems and providing easy image guidance for needle biopsy. The rapid advances in US technology over the past few years have benefited breast US along with more general applications. The marked improvements in the capabilities of digital scanners with sophisticated composite transducers have led to better imaging and Doppler, with lower noise floors and improved spatial resolution. The extended field of view available on many systems facilitates comparison of textures across the whole breast and is useful for follow-up studies. Three-dimensional data sets achieve similar benefits and allow reslicing that permits the identical view to be repeated for accurate follow-up comparisons. The introduction of microbubble contrast agents not only improves the display of small vessels but also makes three-dimensional Doppler studies more informative. In addition they provide the opportunity to perform functional studies by timing the wash-in and wash-out of a bolus injection; whether or not this has clinical value remains to be explored.

Despite the many advances listed in the preceding paragraph current weaknesses of breast US include operator dependence and reproducibility, low specificity when used as a screening tool, poor detection of microcalcification, underestimation of tumor extent, and failure to utilize more than 5% of the available information in the returning US signal.

Type
Chapter
Information
Breast Cancer , pp. 70 - 98
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Samuels, T H. Breast imaging. A look at current and future technologies. Postgrad Med 1998; 104:91–4, 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, SP, Conant, EF, Sehgal, C. Technical advances in breast ultrasound imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2006; 27: 273–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papadia, A, Menada, MV, Ragni, N, et al. Extended field-of-view and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of silicone breast implant lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 360–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber, S, Helbich, T, Kettenbach, J, et al. Effects of a microbubble contrast agent on breast tumors: computer-assisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US – early experience. Radiology 1998; 208: 485–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassano, E, Rizzo, S, Bozzini, A, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound of breast cancer. Cancer Imag 2006; 6: 4–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kedar, RP, Cosgrove, D, McCready, VR, et al. Microbubble contrast agent for color Doppler US: effect on breast masses. Work in progress. Radiology 1996; 198: 679–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gur, DWallace, LP, Klym, AH, et al. Trends in Recall, Biopsy, and Positive Biopsy Rates for Screening Mammography in an Academic Practice. Radiology 2005; 235: 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janes, RH, Bouton, MS. Initial 300 consecutive stereotactic core-needle breast biopsies by a surgical group. Am J Surg 1994; 68: 533–6; discussion 536–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 641–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, M, Kolb, JL, Newhouse, JH. Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165–75.Google Scholar
,EDGAR Online.–http://sec.edgar-online.com/1996/08/27/00/0000950170-96-000705/Section2.asp –EDGAR Online, Inc. (“EOL”) (NASDAQ: EDGR).
Smitt, MC, Nowels, K, Carlson, RW, et al. Predictors of reexcision findings and recurrence after breast conservation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57: 979–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanson, GP, Rynearson, K, Symmonds, R. Significance of margins of excision on breast cancer recurrence. Am J Clin Oncol 2002; 25: 438–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/baso2005-2006.pdf An audit of screen-detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2005 to March 2006, NHSBSP, ABS at BASO. NHS Breast Screening Programme May 2007.
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/hospitaltreatment/whatdoesitcost/breast-lump-removal. Private Healthcare UK, Intuition Communication Ltd. Berkhamsted, UK.
,National Statistics September 2006. Office for National Statistics Source: National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk. Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO.
Deurloo, EE, Peterse, JL, Rutgers, EJTh, et al. Additional breast lesions in patients eligible for breast-conserving therapy by MRI: Impact on preoperative management and potential benefit of computerised analysis. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 1393–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ikedo, Y, Fukuoka, D, Hara, T, et al. Development of a fully automatic scheme for detection of masses in whole breast ultrasound images. Med Phys 2007; 34: 4378–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glide, C, Duric, N, Littrup, P. Novel approach to evaluating breast density utilizing ultrasound tomography. Med Phys 2007; 34: 744–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svensson, WE, Amiras, D. Ultrasound elasticity imaging. Breast Cancer Online 2006, 9:e24: 7 pages. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S1470903106002835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oralkan, O, Ergun, AS, Cheng, C-H, et al. Volumetric imaging using 2D capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer arrays (CMUTs): Initial results. In: IEEE Ultrason Symp, Munich: Germany, 2002, pp. 1083–6.Google Scholar
Oralkan, O, Ergun, AS, Cheng, CH, et al. Volumetric ultrasound imaging using 2-D CMUT arrays. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2003; 50: 1581–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, VR, Sidhu, PS. New directions in ultrasound: microbubble contrast. Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 188–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, CJ, Blomley, MJK, Eckersley, RJ, et al, Developments in ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 675–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leen, E. Ultrasound contrast harmonic imaging abdominal organs. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2001; 22: 11–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, WK, Im, J, Noh, D. Nonpalpable breast lesions: Evaluation with power Doppler US and a microbubble contrast agent – Initial experience. Radiology 2000; 217: 240–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, RP, Cosgrove, D, McCready, VR, et al. Microbubble contrast agent for color Doppler US: Effect on breast masses. Radiology 1996; 198: 679–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esser, S, Veldhuis, WB, Hillegersberg, R, et al. Accuracy of contrast-enhanced breast ultrasound for pre-operative tumor size assessment in patients diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Cancer Imag 2007; 7: 63–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, Y, Liu, H, Liu, J, et al. Breast tumor size assessment: Comparison of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultasound Med Biol 2007; 33: 1873–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, BB, Merton, DA, Liu, J, et al. Sentinel nodes in a swine model with melanoma: Contrast-enhanced lymphatic US. Radiology 2004; 230: 727–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, BB, Merton, DA, Liu, J, et al. Contrast enhanced sonographic imaging of lymphatic channels and sentinel lymph nodes. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 953–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, Z, Kennedy, AM, Christenson, DA, et al. Drug loaded nano/microbubbles for combining ultrasonography and targeted chemotherapy. Ultrasonics 2008; 48: 260–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamiyama, N, Okamura, Y, Kakee, A, et al. Investigation of ultrasound image processing to improve perceptibility of microcalcifications. J Med Ultrasonics 2008; 35: 97–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, RJ, Hill, CR. Measurement of soft tissue motion using correlation between A-scans. Ultrasound Med Biol 1982; 8: 263–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, LS, Robinson, . Ultrasonic measurement of small displacements and deformations of tissue. Ultrason Imag 1982; 4: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, L, Parker, KJ, Lerner, RM, et al. Imaging of the elastic properties of tissue–A review. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22: 959–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ophir, J, Alam, SK, Garra, B, et al. Elastography: ultrasonic estimation and imaging of the elastic properties of tissues. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 1999; 213: 203–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ophir, J, Cespedes, I, Garra, B, et al. Elastography: imaging of tissue strain and elastic modulus in vivo. Eur JUltrasound 1996; 3: 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, M, Ermert, H. Development and evaluation of a high-frequency ultrasound-based system for in vivo strain imaging of the skin. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2005; 52: 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selbekk, T, Bang, J, Unsgaard, G. Strain processing of intraoperative ultrasound images of brain tumours: Initial Results. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konofagou, EE, D'hooge, J, Ophir, J. Myocardial elastography – a feasibility study in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28: 475–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varghese, T, Zagzebski, JA, Rahko, P, et al. Ultrasonic imaging of myocardial strain using cardiac elastography. Ultrason Imag. 2003; 25: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brands, PJ, Willigers, JM, Ledoux, , et al. A noninvasive method to estimate pulse wave velocity in arteries locally by means of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24: 1325–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X, Kinnick, RR, Fatemi, M, et al. Noninvasive method for estimation of complex elastic modulus of arterial vessels. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2005; 52: 642–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korte, CL, Steen, AF. Intravascular ultrasound elastography: an overview. Ultrasonics 2002; 40: 859–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, Y, Hall, TJ. A modified block matching method for real-time freehand strain imaging. Ultrason Imag 2002; 24: 161–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, TJ. AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in US. Beyond the Basics: Elasticity Imaging with US. Radiographics 2003; 23: 1657–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svensson, WE. The use of elasticity imaging in breast ultrasound. Innovations in Ultrasound. eSie Touch™ Elasticity Imaging. White Paper. Pp. 1–6. ©12.2007, Siemens AG, Munchen, Germany. http://www.medical.siemens.com/siemens/en_INT/gg_us_FBAs/file/misc_downloads/Whitepaper_Elasticity.pdf.
Frey, H. Realtime elastography. A new ultrasound procedure for the reconstruction of tissue elasticity. Radiologe 2003; 43: 850–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyley, MM, Bamber, JC, Shiina, T, et al. Reconstruction of elastic modulus distribution from envelope detected B-mode data. Ultrasonics Symposium, 1996. Proc IEEE 1996; 2: 1611–4.Google Scholar
Nitta, N, Yamakawa, M, Shiina, T, et al. Tissue elasticity imaging based on combined autocorrelation method and 3-D tissue model. 1998 IEEE Ultrason Symp 0–7803–4095–7/98: 1447–1450.
Yamakawa, M, Shiina, T. Tissue elasticity reconstruction based on 3-Dimensional finite-element modelJpn J Appl Phys 1999; 38: 3393–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamakawa, M, Shiina, T. Strain estimation using the extended combined autocorrelation methodJpn J Appl Phys 2001; 40: 3872–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tohno, E, Ueno, E. Current improvements in breast ultrasound, with a special focus on elastography. Breast Cancer 2008; 15: 200–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, T, Svensson, W, Behren, , et al. Lesion size ratio for differentiating breast masses. IEEE Ultrason Symp 2003; 2: 1247–50.Google Scholar
Hall, T, Zhu, Y, Spalding, C. In vivo real-time freehand palpation imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 29: 427–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, WE, Usupbaeva, A, Shousha, S, et al. Ultrasound elasticity imaging is more accurate than grayscale ultrasound for assessing the extent of invasive breast cancers – early results of pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 2006; (16 Suppl. 1): 214.Google Scholar
Bercoff, J, Tanter, M, Fink, M. Supersonic Shear Imaging: a new technique for soft tissues elasticity mapping. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelec Freq Contr 2004; 51: 396–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanter, M, Bercoff, J, Athanasiou, A, et al. Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using superSonic imagine shear imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008; 34: 1373–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andre, MP, Janee, HS, Martin, PJ, et al. High-speed data acquisition in a diffraction tomography system employing large-scale toroidal arrays. Int J Imag Syst Technol 1998; 8: 137–47.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duric, N, Littrup, P, Poulo, L, et al. Detection of breast cancer with ultrasound tomography: First results with the computed ultrasound risk evaluation (C.U.R.E) prototype. Med Phys 2007; 34: 773–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonetti, F, Huang, L, Duric, N, et al. Diffraction and coherence in breast ultrasound tomography: A study with a toroidal arraySubmitted Med Phys 2009; 36: 2955–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kontos, M, Felekouras, E, Fentiman, IS. Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary breast cancer: no surgical redundancies yet. Int J Clin Pract 2008; 62: 816–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oura, S, Tamaki, T, Hirai, I, et al. Radiofrequency ablation therapy in patients with breast cancers two centimetres or less in size. Breast Cancer 2007; 14: 48–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitz, A, Gianfelice, D, Daniel, BL, et al. Image guided focused ultrasound ablation of breast cancer: current status, challenges and future directions. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1431–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esser, S, Bosch, MAAJ, Diest, PJ, et al. Minimally invasive ablative therapies for invasive breast carcinomas: An overview of current literature. World J Surg 2007; 31: 2284–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×