Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of One- and Two-Region of Interest Strain Elastography Measurements in the Differential Diagnosis of Breast Masses

  • Hee Jeong Park (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sun Mi Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Bo La Yun (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Mijung Jang (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Bohyoung Kim (Division of Biomedical Engineering, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) ;
  • Soo Hyun Lee (Department of Radiology, Chungbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Hye Shin Ahn (Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2019.06.28
  • Accepted : 2020.02.09
  • Published : 2020.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver variability of strain ratio obtained from one or two regions of interest (ROI) on breast elastography. Materials and Methods: From April to May 2016, 140 breast masses in 140 patients who underwent conventional ultrasonography (US) with strain elastography followed by US-guided biopsy were evaluated. Three experienced breast radiologists reviewed recorded US and elastography images, measured strain ratios, and categorized them according to the American College of Radiology breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. Strain ratio was obtained using the 1-ROI method (one ROI drawn on the target mass), and the 2-ROI method (one ROI in the target mass and another in reference fat tissue). The diagnostic performance of the three radiologists among datasets and optimal cut-off values for strain ratios were evaluated. Interobserver variability of strain ratio for each ROI method was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient values, Bland-Altman plots, and coefficients of variation. Results: Compared to US alone, US combined with the strain ratio measured using either ROI method significantly improved specificity, positive predictive value, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (all p values < 0.05). Strain ratio obtained using the 1-ROI method showed higher interobserver agreement between the three radiologists without a significant difference in AUC for differentiating breast cancer when the optimal strain ratio cut-off value was used, compared with the 2-ROI method (AUC: 0.788 vs. 0.783, 0.693 vs. 0.715, and 0.691 vs. 0.686, respectively, all p values > 0.05). Conclusion: Strain ratios obtained using the 1-ROI method showed higher interobserver agreement without a significant difference in AUC, compared to those obtained using the 2-ROI method. Considering that the 1-ROI method can reduce performers' efforts, it could have an important role in improving the diagnostic performance of breast US by enabling consistent management of breast lesions.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Division of Statistics of the Medical Research Collaborating Center at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital for the statistical analyses.

References

  1. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006;239:341-350  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391041676
  2. Shiina T. JSUM ultrasound elastography practice guidelines: basics and terminology. J Med Ultrason 2013;40:309-323  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-013-0490-z
  3. Barr RG. Elastography in clinical practice. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:1145-1162  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2014.07.002
  4. Kim DW, Suh CH, Kim KW, Pyo J, Park C, Jung SC. Technical performance of two-dimensional shear wave elastography for measuring liver stiffness: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:880-893  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0812
  5. Yoon H, Shin HJ, Kim MJ, Lee MJ. Quantitative imaging in pediatric hepatobiliary disease. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:1342-1357  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0002
  6. Yun SJ, Jin W, Cho NS, Ryu KN, Yoon YC, Cha JG, et al. Shear-wave and strain ultrasound elastography of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: a prospective case-control study. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:1176-1185  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0918
  7. Ricci P, Maggini E, Mancuso E, Lodise P, Cantisani V, Catalano C. Clinical application of breast elastography: state of the art. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:429-437  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.05.007
  8. Gong X, Xu Q, Xu Z, Xiong P, Yan W, Chen Y. Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;130:11-18  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1745-2
  9. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS® atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston VA: American College of Radiology, 2013 
  10. Garra BS. Imaging and estimation of tissue elasticity by ultrasound. Ultrasound Q 2007;23:255-268  https://doi.org/10.1097/ruq.0b013e31815b7ed6
  11. Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Slowinski T, Fischer T. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Acad Radiol 2010;17:558-563  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.12.006
  12. Barr RG, Destounis S, Lackey LB 2nd, Svensson WE, Balleyguier C, Smith C. Evaluation of breast lesions using sonographic elasticity imaging: a multicenter trial. J Ultrasound Med 2012;31:281-287  https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2012.31.2.281
  13. Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA. Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound elastography for differentiation of malignant and benign breast abnormalities: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;134:923-931  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2020-x
  14. Zhi H, Xiao XY, Ou B, Zhong WJ, Zhao ZZ, Zhao XB, et al. Could ultrasonic elastography help the diagnosis of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer with the usage of sonographic BI-RADS classification? Eur J Radiol 2012;81:3216-3221  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.04.016
  15. Thomas A, Fischer T, Frey H, Ohlinger R, Grunwald S, Blohmer JU, et al. Real-time elastography--an advanced method of ultrasound: first results in 108 patients with breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:335-340  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.2823
  16. Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM, Hesley GK, Sisney GA, Svensson WE, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology 2007;245:401-410  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2452061805
  17. Regner DM, Hesley GK, Hangiandreou NJ, Morton MJ, Nordland MR, Meixner DD, et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging--clinical experience of multiple observers. Radiology 2006;238:425-437  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2381041336
  18. Yoon JH, Kim MH, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Kim MJ. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography: how it affects the diagnosis of breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:730-736  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4654
  19. Havre RF, Waage JR, Gilja OH, Odegaard S, Nesje LB. Real-time elastography: strain ratio measurements are influenced by the position of the reference area. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:559-568  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1273247
  20. Yoon JH, Song MK, Kim EK. Semi-quantitative strain ratio in the differential diagnosis of breast masses: measurements using one region-of-interest. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016;42:1800-1806  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.03.030
  21. Duda VF, Kohler C. An improved quantification tool for breast ElastoScanTM: E-BreastTM. White Paper. Seoul: Samsung Medison, 2014 
  22. Yoon JH, Song MK, Kim EK. Semi-quantitative strain ratio determined using different measurement methods: comparison of strain ratio values and diagnostic performance using one-versus two-region-of-interest measurement. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017;43:911-917  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.01.005
  23. Chang JM, Won JK, Lee KB, Park IA, Yi A, Moon WK. Comparison of shear-wave and strain ultrasound elastography in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:W347-W356  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10416
  24. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Kim SJ. Breast mass evaluation: factors influencing the quality of US elastography. Radiology 2011;259:59-64  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101414
  25. Enderlein G. Fleiss J. L: The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York-Chichester-Brislane-Toronto-Singapore 1986, 432 S., £38.35. Biom J 1988;30:304 
  26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307-310  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
  27. Fischer T, Peisker U, Fiedor S, Slowinski T, Wedemeyer P, Diekmann F, et al. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: raw data-based calculation of strain ratio. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:372-379  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1273222
  28. Stachs A, Hartmann S, Stubert J, Dieterich M, Martin A, Kundt G, et al. Differentiating between malignant and benign breast masses: factors limiting sonoelastographic strain ratio. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:131-136