Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar 31;14(3):488-497.
doi: 10.21037/gs-2025-93. Epub 2025 Mar 26.

The diagnostic value of real-time ultrasound elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in BI-RADS 4A breast lesions

Affiliations

The diagnostic value of real-time ultrasound elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in BI-RADS 4A breast lesions

Yindi Zhu et al. Gland Surg. .

Abstract

Background: The Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) is the primary system for classifying clinical breast lesions. Most early lesions identified via ultrasound are classified as BI-RADS 4A or lower. Although the vast majority of BI-RADS 4A lesions are benign, those lesions still have the possibility of malignancy in clinical practice, which is a controversial and noteworthy issue. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic value of real-time ultrasound elastography (UE) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in evaluating BI-RADS 4A breast lesions.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the UE and CEUS data of 52 BI-RADS 4A breast lesions from 52 patients between January 2020 and March 2023. All diagnoses were confirmed by surgical pathology. Lesion characteristics, including the margins, echogenicity, size, microcalcifications, blood flow patterns, UE scores, and CEUS features, were analyzed. CEUS scores were based on a five-point system, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using MedCalc version 19.0.4.

Results: Based on the postoperative pathology, of the 52 lesions, 27 were benign and 25 were malignant. Compared to those with benign lesions, the patients with malignant lesions were older and had larger lesions (P<0.05). Features such as irregular morphology, indistinct margins, increased blood flow, and calcifications were more common in the malignant lesions than the benign lesions (P<0.05). The malignant lesions also had a higher prevalence of inhomogeneous enhancement, vasa vasorum, irregular enhanced morphology, and crab claw-like signs on CEUS than the benign lesions (P<0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of both the UE and CEUS individually was 76.9%, while the diagnostic accuracy of the UE and CEUS combined reached 80.8%. The AUCs of UE, CEUS, and the UE and CEUS combined were 0.761, 0.773, and 0.813, respectively.

Conclusions: UE and CEUS have significant diagnostic value for BI-RADS 4A breast lesions. Combining these techniques improves diagnostic accuracy and can help reduce unnecessary biopsies.

Keywords: Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System 4A (BI-RADS 4A); Real-time ultrasound elastography; breast cancer; contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS); diagnosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://gs.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/gs-2025-93/coif). T.J.H. reports that there is unrelated research funding to her institution from Genentech, SkylineDX BV. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ROC curves of diagnostic efficacy for UE, CEUS, and UE + CEUS. CEUS, contrast-enhanced ultrasound; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; UE, ultrasound elastography.

Similar articles

References

    1. Coles CE, Earl H, Anderson BO, et al. The Lancet Breast Cancer Commission. Lancet 2024;403:1895-950. 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00747-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Michaels E, Worthington RO, Rusiecki J. Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Screening, and Primary Prevention. Med Clin North Am 2023;107:271-84. 10.1016/j.mcna.2022.10.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Britt KL, Cuzick J, Phillips KA. Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention. Nat Rev Cancer 2020;20:417-36. 10.1038/s41568-020-0266-x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benitez Fuentes JD, Morgan E, de Luna Aguilar A, et al. Global Stage Distribution of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Oncol 2024;10:71-8. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.4837 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wekking D, Porcu M, De Silva P, et al. Breast MRI: Clinical Indications, Recommendations, and Future Applications in Breast Cancer Diagnosis. Curr Oncol Rep 2023;25:257-67. 10.1007/s11912-023-01372-x - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources