Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis

The prognostic significance of ultrasound real-time elastography (RTE) in patients with breast lesions is controversial. There are two different diagnostic methods: the elasticity score (ES) and the strain ratio (SR). A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model to assess the overall sensitivity and specificity of RTE in the differentiation of breast lesions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library before February 2011 were searched. A total of 22 studies, which included 4,713 breast nodules in 4,266 patients were analyzed. The overall mean sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant breast lesions by RTE were 0.834 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.814–0.853] and 0.842 (95% CI, 0.829–0.854) for ES, and 0.883 (95% CI, 0.844–0.916) and 0.814 (95% CI, 0.786–0.839) for SR, respectively. RTE has a high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of breast lesions and can potentially reduce unnecessary breast biopsies.

[1]  B. Kang,et al.  Role and clinical usefulness of elastography in small breast masses. , 2011, Academic radiology.

[2]  H. Teh,et al.  Improving B mode ultrasound evaluation of breast lesions with real-time ultrasound elastography--a clinical approach. , 2008, Breast.

[3]  Shyam Sundar Parajuly,et al.  Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. , 2010, Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP.

[4]  Hui Zhi,et al.  Comparison of Ultrasound Elastography, Mammography, and Sonography in the Diagnosis of Solid Breast Lesions , 2007, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[5]  G. Gandini,et al.  Role of sonoelastography in characterising breast nodules. Preliminary experience with 120 lesions , 2010, La radiologia medica.

[6]  R Platt,et al.  Is There a “Best” Way to Detect and Minimize Publication Bias? , 2001, Evaluation & the health professions.

[7]  T. Matsumura,et al.  Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. , 2006, Radiology.

[8]  Jesse A Berlin,et al.  Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? , 1997, The Lancet.

[9]  S. Naganawa,et al.  Predictive value for malignancy of suspicious breast masses of BI-RADS categories 4 and 5 using ultrasound elastography and MR diffusion-weighted imaging. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Sonoelastographic Strain Index for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Nonpalpable Breast Masses , 2010, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[11]  Sonographic Elastography Combined With Conventional Sonography , 2009, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[12]  G. Farr,et al.  Benign Diagnosis by Image-Guided Core-Needle Breast Biopsy , 2000, The American surgeon.

[13]  Tao Liu,et al.  Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[14]  E. Fleury,et al.  New elastographic classification of breast lesions during and after compression. , 2009, Diagnostic and interventional radiology.

[15]  Jason P Fine,et al.  Differentiating Benign from Malignant Solid Breast Masses with US Strain Imaging 1 , 2007 .

[16]  Luigi Mariani,et al.  Role of sonoelastography in non-palpable breast lesions , 2008, European Radiology.

[17]  J. Deeks,et al.  A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[18]  Duane D. Meixner,et al.  Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging--clinical experience of multiple observers. , 2006, Radiology.

[19]  Javier Zamora,et al.  Meta-DiSc : a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data , 2015 .

[20]  Qingli Zhu,et al.  Real-time ultrasound elastography: its potential role in assessment of breast lesions. , 2008, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[21]  Richard G Barr,et al.  Real-Time Ultrasound Elasticity of the Breast: Initial Clinical Results , 2010, Ultrasound quarterly.

[22]  J Shepherd,et al.  Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris) for the treatment of severe sepsis in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[23]  Ruey-Feng Chang,et al.  Analysis of elastographic and B-mode features at sonoelastography for breast tumor classification. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[24]  M Heller,et al.  Breast ultrasound elastography--results of 193 breast lesions in a prospective study with histopathologic correlation. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[25]  Y. Chou,et al.  Sonographic features of nonpalpable breast cancer: a study based on ultrasound-guided wire-localized surgical biopsies. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[26]  Differentiation of benign from malignant nonpalpable breast masses: A comparison of computer-assisted quantification and visual assessment of lesion stiffness with the use of sonographic elastography , 2010, Acta radiologica.

[27]  T. Fischer,et al.  Real-time sonoelastography performed in addition to B-mode ultrasound and mammography: improved differentiation of breast lesions? , 2006, Academic radiology.

[28]  S. Raza,et al.  Using Real‐time Tissue Elastography for Breast Lesion Evaluation , 2010, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[29]  Hui Zhi,et al.  Ultrasonic elastography in breast cancer diagnosis: strain ratio vs 5-point scale. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[30]  L E Moses,et al.  Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  K. Kim,et al.  Computer-aided analysis of ultrasound elasticity images for classification of benign and malignant breast masses. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[32]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  W. Moon,et al.  Nonpalpable Breast Masses: Evaluation by US Elastography , 2008, Korean journal of radiology.

[34]  V. Jackson,et al.  The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. , 1995, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[35]  K. Winzer,et al.  Real‐time elastography — an advanced method of ultrasound: first results in 108 patients with breast lesions , 2006, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[36]  Sebastian Wojcinski,et al.  Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[37]  W. Moon,et al.  Real-time US elastography in the differentiation of suspicious microcalcifications on mammography , 2009, European Radiology.

[38]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

[39]  A. Jara-Lazaro,et al.  A prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional breast ultrasound. , 2010, Clinical radiology.