DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Elastography for Breast Cancer Diagnosis: a Useful Tool for Small and BI-RADS 4 Lesions

  • Liu, Xue-Jing ;
  • Zhu, Ying ;
  • Liu, Pei-Fang ;
  • Xu, Yi-Lin
  • Published : 2015.01.22

Abstract

The present study aimed at evaluating and comparing the diagnostic performance of B-mode ultrasound (US), elastography score (ES), and strain ratio (SR) for the differentiation of breast lesions. This retrospective study enrolled 431 lesions from 417 in-hospital patients. All patients were examined with both conventional ultrasound and elastography. Two experienced radiologists reviewed ultrasound and elasticity images. The histopathologic result obtained from ultrasound-guided core biopsy or operation excisions were used as the reference standard. Pathologic examination revealed 276 malignant lesions (64%) and 155 benign lesions (36%). A cut-off point of 4.15 (area under the curve, 0.891) allowed significant differentiation of malignant and benign lesions. ROC (receiver-operating characteristic) curves showed a higher value for combination of B-mode ultrasound and elastography for the diagnosis of breast lesions. Conventional ultrasound combined elastography showed high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for group II lesions (10mm${\leq}20mm$). Elastography combined with conventional ultrasound show high specificity and accuracy for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Elastography is particularly important for the diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 and small breast lesions.

Keywords

Ultrasound;elastography;breast lesions;strain ratio

References

  1. Adamietz BR, Meier-Meitinger M, Fasching P, et al (2011). New diagnostic criteria in real-time elastography for the assessment of breast lesions. Ultraschall Med, 32, 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1245821
  2. American College of Radiology (2003). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (Bi-Rads) Ultrasound. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology.
  3. Brenner H, Gondos A, Arndt V (2007). Recent major progress in long-term cancer patient survival disclosed by modeled period analysis. J Clin Oncol, 25, 3274-80. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.11.3431
  4. Chiou SY, Chou YH, Chiou HJ, et al (2006). Sonographic features of nonpalpable breast cancer: a study based on ultrasound-guided wire-localized surgical biopsies. Ultrasound Med Biol, 32, 1299-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.018
  5. Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, et al (2008). Nonpalpable breast masses: evaluation by US elastography. Korean J Radiol, 9, 111-8. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.2.111
  6. Cho N, Moon WK, Kim HY, et al (2010). Sonoelastographic strain index for differentiation of benign and malignant nonpalpable breast masses. J Ultrasound Med, 29, 1-7.
  7. Cho N, Jang MJ, Lyou CY, et al (2012). Distinguishing benign from malignant masses at breast US: Combined US elastography and color Dopple US-influence on radiologist accuracy. Radiology, 262, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110886
  8. Engelken FJ, Sack I, Klatt D, et al (2012). Evaluation of tomosynthesis elastography in a breast-mimicking phantom. Eur J Radiol, 81, 2169-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.033
  9. Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Degenhardt F (2013). Evaluation of real-time tissue sono-elastography in the assessment of 214 breast lesions: limitations of this method resulting from different histologic subtypes, tumor size and tumor localization. Ultrasound Med Bio, 39, 2264-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2013.08.002
  10. Fu LN, Wang Y, Wang Y, et al (2011). Value of ultrasound elastography in detecting small breast tumors. Chin Med J, 124, 2384-6.
  11. Gong X, Xu QH, Xu ZL, et al (2011). Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Ras Treat, 130, 11-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1745-2
  12. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al (2006). Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology, 239, 341-50. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391041676
  13. Jackson VP (1995). The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am, 33, 1161-70.
  14. Krouskop TA, Wheller TM, Kallel F, et al (1998). Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissue under compression. Ultrason Imaging, 20, 260-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/016173469802000403
  15. Kumm TR, Szabunio MM (2010). Elastography for the characterization of breast lesions: initial clinical experience. Cancer Control, 17, 156-61.
  16. Lee JH, Kim SH, Kang BJ, et al (2011). Role and clinical usefulness of elastography in small masses. Acad Radiol, 18, 74-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2010.07.014
  17. Leung DY, Leung AY, Chi I (2012). Breast and colorectal cancer screening and associated correlates among Chinese older women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 283-7. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.1.283
  18. Liu J, Liu P-F, Li J-N, et al (2014). Analysis of mammographic breast density in a group of screening Chinese women and breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6411-4. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6411
  19. Meier-Metitinger M, Haberle L, Fasching PA, et al (2011). Assessment of breast cancer tumor size using six different methods. Eur Radiol, 21, 1180-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-2016-z
  20. Moon WK, Chang SC, Huang CS, et al (2011). Breast tumor classification using fuzzy clustering for breast elastography. Ultrasound Med Bio, 37, 700-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2011.02.003
  21. Parajuly SS, Lan PY, Yan L, et al (2010). Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 809-14.
  22. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al (1999). Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology, 213, 889-94. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc20889
  23. Regini E, Bagnera S, Tota D, et al (2010). Role of sonoelastography in characterising breast nodules. Preliminary experience with 120 lesions. Radiol Med, 115, 551-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0518-z
  24. Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, et al (2010). Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Acad Radiol, 17, 558-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.12.006
  25. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al (2001). Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 19, 3524-31.
  26. Zhang L, Liu YJ, Jiang SQ, et al (2014). Ultrasound utility for predicting biological behavior of invasive ductal breast cancers. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 8057-62. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.19.8057
  27. Zhi H, Ou B, Luo BM, et al (2007). Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med, 26, 807-15.

Cited by

  1. Factors Affecting the Quality of Breast Quasistatic Ultrasound Elastograms pp.02784297, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14518