Diagnostic performance of quantitative shear wave elastography in the evaluation of solid breast masses: determination of the most discriminatory parameter.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this article is to assess the diagnostic performance of quantitative shear wave elastography in the evaluation of solid breast masses and to determine the most discriminatory parameter. SUBJECTS AND METHODS B-mode ultrasound and shear wave elastography were performed before core biopsy of 123 masses in 112 women. The diagnostic performance of ultrasound and quantitative shear wave elastography parameters (mean elasticity, maximum elasticity, and elasticity ratio) were compared. The added effect of shear wave elastography on the performance of ultrasound was determined. RESULTS The mean elasticity, maximum elasticity, and elasticity ratio were 24.8 kPa, 30.3 kPa, and 1.90, respectively, for 79 benign masses and 130.7 kPa, 154.9 kPa, and 11.52, respectively, for 44 malignant masses (p < 0.001). The optimal cutoff value for each parameter was determined to be 42.5 kPa, 46.7 kPa, and 3.56, respectively. The AUC of each shear wave elastography parameter was higher than that of ultrasound (p < 0.001); the AUC value for the elasticity ratio (0.943) was the highest. By adding shear wave elastography parameters to the evaluation of BI-RADS category 4a masses, about 90% of masses could be downgraded to BI-RADS category 3. The numbers of downgraded masses were 40 of 44 (91%) for mean elasticity, 39 of 44 (89%) for maximum elasticity, and 42 of 44 (95%) for elasticity ratio. The numbers of correctly downgraded masses were 39 of 40 (98%) for mean elasticity, 38 of 39 (97%) for maximum elasticity, and 41 of 42 (98%) for elasticity ratio. There was improvement in the diagnostic performance of ultrasound of mass assessment with shear wave elastography parameters added to BI-RADS category 4a masses compared with ultrasound alone. Combined ultrasound and elasticity ratio had the highest improvement, from 35.44% to 87.34% for specificity, from 45.74% to 80.77% for positive predictive value, and from 57.72% to 90.24% for accuracy (p < 0.0001). The AUC of combined ultrasound and elasticity ratio (0.914) was the highest compared with the other combined parameters. CONCLUSION There was a statistically significant difference in the values of the quantitative shear wave elastography parameters of benign and malignant solid breast masses. By adding shear wave elastography parameters to BI-RADS category 4a masses, we found that about 90% of them could be correctly downgraded to BI-RADS category 3, thereby avoiding biopsy. Elasticity ratio (cutoff, 3.56) appeared to be the most discriminatory parameter.

[1]  R. Birdwell,et al.  US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. , 2010, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[2]  A. Goddi,et al.  Breast elastography: A literature review. , 2012, Journal of ultrasound.

[3]  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.

[4]  Mickael Tanter,et al.  The role of viscosity in the impulse diffraction field of elastic waves induced by the acoustic radiation force , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[5]  R. Barr,et al.  Sonographic Breast Elastography , 2012, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

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

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

[8]  Stanislav Emelianov,et al.  Biophysical Bases of Elasticity Imaging , 1995 .

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

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

[11]  G. Trahey,et al.  Shear-wave generation using acoustic radiation force: in vivo and ex vivo results. , 2003, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

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

[13]  Jung Hyun Yoon,et al.  Diagnostic performances of shear wave elastography: which parameter to use in differential diagnosis of solid breast masses? , 2013, European Radiology.

[14]  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.

[15]  Z. Werb,et al.  The extracellular matrix: A dynamic niche in cancer progression , 2012, The Journal of cell biology.

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

[17]  S. Emelianov,et al.  Shear wave elasticity imaging: a new ultrasonic technology of medical diagnostics. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

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

[19]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[20]  Seon Hyeong Choi,et al.  Validation of intra- and interobserver reproducibility of shearwave elastography: Phantom study. , 2013, Ultrasonics.

[21]  J Bercoff,et al.  In vivo breast tumor detection using transient elastography. , 2003, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

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

[23]  M. Fink,et al.  Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

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

[25]  S. Kook,et al.  Ultrasound and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Triple Receptor-Negative Breast Cancers , 2011, Journal of breast cancer.

[26]  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.

[27]  Eun Ju Son,et al.  Diagnostic value of commercially available shear-wave elastography for breast cancers: integration into BI-RADS classification with subcategories of category 4 , 2013, European Radiology.

[28]  C. D. HAAGENSEN,et al.  Diseases of the Breast , 1972 .