Diagnostic performances of shear wave elastography: which parameter to use in differential diagnosis of solid breast masses?

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate which shear wave elastography (SWE) parameter proves most accurate in the differential diagnosis of solid breast masses.MethodsOne hundred and fifty-six breast lesions in 139 consecutive women (mean age: 43.54 ± 9.94 years, range 21–88 years), who had been scheduled for ultrasound-guided breast biopsy, were included. Conventional ultrasound and SWE were performed in all women before biopsy procedures. Ultrasound BI-RADS final assessment and SWE parameters were recorded. Diagnostic performance of each SWE parameter was calculated and compared with those obtained when applying cut-off values of previously published data. Performance of conventional ultrasound and ultrasound combined with each parameter was also compared.ResultsOf the 156 breast masses, 120 (76.9 %) were benign and 36 (23.1 %) malignant. Maximum stiffness (Emax) with a cut-off of 82.3 kPa had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (Az) value compared with other SWE parameters, 0.860 (sensitivity 88.9 %, specificity 77.5 %, accuracy 80.1 %). Az values of conventional ultrasound combined with each SWE parameter showed lower (but not significantly) values than with conventional ultrasound alone.ConclusionsMaximum stiffness (82.3 kPa) provided the best diagnostic performance. However the overall diagnostic performance of ultrasound plus SWE was not significantly better than that of conventional ultrasound alone.Key Points• SWE offers new information over and above conventional breast ultrasound • Various SWE parameters were explored regarding distinction between benign and malignant lesions • An elasticity of 82.3 kPa appears optimal in differentiating solid breast masses • However, ultrasound plus SWE was not significantly better than conventional ultrasound alone

[1]  M. Tozaki,et al.  Pattern classification of ShearWaveTM Elastography images for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant solid breast masses , 2011, Acta radiologica.

[2]  A. Thompson,et al.  Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with greyscale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[3]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[5]  M. Mainiero,et al.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. , 2006, Radiology.

[6]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional shear-wave elastography , 2012, European Radiology.

[7]  M. Mathieu,et al.  Breast elasticity: principles, technique, results: an update and overview of commercially available software. , 2013, European journal of radiology.

[8]  M. Fink,et al.  Breast lesions: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging--preliminary results. , 2010, Radiology.

[9]  David O. Cosgrove,et al.  Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible , 2011, European Radiology.

[10]  J. Youk,et al.  Sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: a review of 2,420 cases with long-term follow-up. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Colleen H. Neal,et al.  Impact of breast mass size on accuracy of ultrasound elastography vs. conventional B-mode ultrasound: a meta-analysis of individual participants , 2013, European Radiology.

[12]  Kim Thomson,et al.  Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses , 2010, Breast Cancer Research.

[13]  P. Crystal,et al.  Accuracy of sonographically guided 14‐gauge core‐needle biopsy: Results of 715 consecutive breast biopsies with at least two‐year follow‐up of benign lesions , 2005, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[14]  Jin Young Kwak,et al.  Analysis of false-negative results after US-guided 14-gauge core needle breast biopsy , 2010, European Radiology.

[15]  Jin Young Kwak,et al.  Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography: how it affects the diagnosis of breast lesions. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[17]  Ki Keun Oh,et al.  Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. , 2008, European journal of radiology.

[18]  A. Thompson,et al.  Invasive breast cancer: relationship between shear-wave elastographic findings and histologic prognostic factors. , 2012, Radiology.

[19]  D. Noh,et al.  Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[20]  J. Youk,et al.  Visually assessed colour overlay features in shear-wave elastography for breast masses: quantification and diagnostic performance , 2013, European Radiology.

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

[22]  W. Svensson,et al.  Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. , 2012, Radiology.

[23]  Thomas Deffieux,et al.  Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging. , 2008, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.