Predictive model for contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the breast: Is it feasible in malignant risk assessment of breast imaging reporting and data system 4 lesions?

Table 1 Final pathologic diagnosis of 235 breast lesions

Histopathologic diagnosis	Total
Benign lesions	139
Fibroadenoma	53
Fibrocystic mastopathy	35
Complex sclerosing adenosis	5
Hyperplasia	4
Chronic mastitis	21
Granulomatous mastitis	4
Intraductal papilloma	9
Benign phyllodes tumor	3
Hamartoma	2
Radial scar	2
Bolus material after operation	1
Malignant lesions	96
IDC	78
DCIS	9
Mucinous carcinoma	3
Infiltrating lobular carcinoma	2
Diffused large B-cell lymphoma	2
Malignant phyllodes tumor	1
Solid neuroendocrine carcinoma	1
Total	235

IDC: Invasive ductal carcinoma; DCIS: Ductal carcinoma in suit.

Table 2 Results of contrast-enhanced ultrasound qualitative analysis of 235 breast lesions

	Benign	Malignant	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	pearson χ2	P	Cut-off
Enhanced time
Slow	49	11	76	56.1	25.1645	< 0.0001	Synchronous
Synchronous	29	12
Rapid	61	73
Enhanced intensity
Hypo	49	9	81.2	56.8	34.5297	< 0.0001	Iso
Iso	30	9
Hyper	60	78
Scope of lesion
Can’t distinguish	33	5	66.7	86.3	73.0619	< 0.0001	Equal
Smaller	4	5
Equal	87	27
Larger	15	59
Enhanced direction
Diffuse	114	63	34.4	82	10.1407	0.0063	Diffuse
Centripetal	24	1
Centrifugal	28	5
Internal homogeneity
Homogeneous	76	47	51	54.7	1.6242	0.6539
Heterogeneous	63	49
Perfusion defect
Absent	104	52	68.8	54.7	15.6391	0.0013	Absent
Present	35	44
Crab claw like pattern
Absent	137	73	24	98.6	27.9683	< 0.0001	Absent
Present	2	23
Nourishing vessels
Absent	128	55	42.7	92.1	37.9019	< 0.0001	Absent
Present	11	41
Margin after enhancement
Clear	12	1	78.1	64.7	42.9752	< 0.0001	Can’t distinguish
Almost clear	48	14
Can’t distinguish	30	6
Unclear	49	75
Shape after enhancement
Regular	28	1	59.4	82.7	56.0275	< 0.0001	Can’t distinguish
Almost regular	56	32
Can’t distinguish	31	6
Irregular	24	57