Literature DB >> 21330569

Breast mass evaluation: factors influencing the quality of US elastography.

Jung Min Chang1, Woo Kyung Moon, Nariya Cho, Seung Ja Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate factors influencing the quality of ultrasonographic (US) elastography in the evaluation of suspicious breast masses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted with institutional review board approval; written informed consent was obtained. Between January 2009 and February 2009, real-time US elastography of 312 breast masses (245 benign, 67 malignant) was performed in 268 consecutive patients (mean age, 45.7 years ± 10.2 [standard deviation]) prior to US-guided core biopsy. Five breast radiologists who had performed the examinations assessed the quality of elasticity images as inadequate, low, or high without histologic information. Age, body mass index (BMI), mammographic density, lesion size, lesion depth, and breast thickness at US were analyzed for their association with image quality by using the χ(2) test, Student t test, and multivariate analysis. Sensitivities and specificities for the differentiation of benign from malignant masses on the basis of elastography were calculated and compared between groups of quality scores by using the logistic regression method.
RESULTS: The quality of elasticity images was assessed as inadequate in 21 (6.7%) cases, low in 134 (42.9%), and high in 157 (50.3%). According to univariate analysis, smaller lesion size (P = .001), shallower lesion depth (P = .005), less breast thickness where the lesion was located (P < .0001), and benign pathologic finding (P = .004) were significantly associated with higher image quality. There was no correlation of image quality with age (P = .213), BMI (P = .191), mammographic density (P = .091), or distance from the nipple (P = .100). Multivariable analysis showed that breast thickness at the location of target lesions was the most important factor influencing elasticity image quality (P = .001). There were significant differences in sensitivity between higher-quality and lower-quality images (87.0% vs 56.8%, respectively; P = .015) in the differentiation of benign from malignant masses.
CONCLUSION: Breast thickness at the location of the lesion was the most important factor influencing image quality at US elastography. Sensitivity for classification of benign and malignant masses improved with higher quality scores. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21330569     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101414

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  33 in total

1.  Diagnostic value of commercially available shear-wave elastography for breast cancers: integration into BI-RADS classification with subcategories of category 4.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Hye Mi Gweon; Eun Ju Son; Kyung Hwa Han; Jeong-Ah Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Shear wave elastography in the diagnosis of breast non-mass lesions: factors associated with false negative and false positive results.

Authors:  So Yoon Park; Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional shear-wave elastography.

Authors:  Su Hyun Lee; Jung Min Chang; Won Hwa Kim; Min Sun Bae; Nariya Cho; Ann Yi; Hye Ryoung Koo; Seung Ja Kim; Jin You Kim; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-10-20       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Shear-wave elastography quantitative assessment of the male breast: added value to distinguish benign and malignant palpable masses.

Authors:  Amandine Crombé; Gabrielle Hurtevent-Labrot; Maryam Asad-Syed; Jean Palussière; Gaetan MacGrogan; Michèle Kind; Stéphane Ferron
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  JSUM ultrasound elastography practice guidelines: breast.

Authors:  Kazutaka Nakashima; Tsuyoshi Shiina; Masaru Sakurai; Katsutoshi Enokido; Tokiko Endo; Hiroko Tsunoda; Etsuo Takada; Takeshi Umemoto; Ei Ueno
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 1.314

6.  Comparison of strain and shear-wave ultrasounic elastography in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers.

Authors:  Yan Ma; Shuo Zhang; Jing Li; Jianyi Li; Ye Kang; Weidong Ren
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Shear-wave elastography in the diagnosis of solid breast masses: what leads to false-negative or false-positive results?

Authors:  Jung Hyun Yoon; Hae Kyoung Jung; Jong Tae Lee; Kyung Hee Ko
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in cancer: Technique, analysis, and applications.

Authors:  Kay M Pepin; Richard L Ehman; Kiaran P McGee
Journal:  Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 9.795

9.  Shear wave elastography of tumour growth in a human breast cancer model with pathological correlation.

Authors:  Foucauld Chamming's; H Latorre-Ossa; M A Le Frère-Belda; V Fitoussi; T Quibel; F Assayag; E Marangoni; G Autret; D Balvay; L Pidial; J L Gennisson; M Tanter; C A Cuenod; O Clément; L S Fournier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Elastography by acoustic radiation force impulse technology for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  BaoXian Liu; YanLing Zheng; QuanYuan Shan; Ying Lu; ManXia Lin; WenShuo Tian; XiaoYan Xie
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 1.314

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.