OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic value of sonoelastography by correlation with histopathology compared with conventional ultrasound on the decision to biopsy. METHODS: Prospectively determined BI-RADS categories of conventional ultrasound and elasticity scores from strain sonoelastography of 1786 non-palpable breast masses (1,523 benign and 263 malignant) in 1,538 women were correlated with histopathology. The sensitivity and specificity of two imaging techniques were compared regarding the decision to biopsy. We also investigated whether there was a subset of benign masses that were recommended for biopsy by B-mode ultrasound but that had a less than 2% malignancy rate with the addition of sonoelastography. RESULTS: The mean elasticity score of malignant lesions was higher than that of benign lesions (2.94 ± 1.10 vs. 1.78 ± 0.81) (P < 0.001). In the decision to biopsy, B-mode ultrasound had higher sensitivity than sonoelastography (98.5% vs. 93.2%) (P < 0.001), whereas sonoelastography had higher specificity than B-mode ultrasound (42.6% vs. 16.3%) (P < 0.001). BI-RADS category 4a lesions with an elasticity score of 1 had a malignancy rate of 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Sonoelastography has higher specificity than B-mode ultrasound in the differentiation between benign and malignant masses and has the potential to reduce biopsies with benign results. KEY POINTS: • Sonoelastography has higher specificity than B-mode ultrasound in distinguishing benign from malignant masses. • Sonoelastography could potentially help reduce the number of biopsies with benign results. • Lesion stiffness on sonoelastography correlated with the malignant potential of the lesion.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic value of sonoelastography by correlation with histopathology compared with conventional ultrasound on the decision to biopsy. METHODS: Prospectively determined BI-RADS categories of conventional ultrasound and elasticity scores from strain sonoelastography of 1786 non-palpable breast masses (1,523 benign and 263 malignant) in 1,538 women were correlated with histopathology. The sensitivity and specificity of two imaging techniques were compared regarding the decision to biopsy. We also investigated whether there was a subset of benign masses that were recommended for biopsy by B-mode ultrasound but that had a less than 2% malignancy rate with the addition of sonoelastography. RESULTS: The mean elasticity score of malignant lesions was higher than that of benign lesions (2.94 ± 1.10 vs. 1.78 ± 0.81) (P < 0.001). In the decision to biopsy, B-mode ultrasound had higher sensitivity than sonoelastography (98.5% vs. 93.2%) (P < 0.001), whereas sonoelastography had higher specificity than B-mode ultrasound (42.6% vs. 16.3%) (P < 0.001). BI-RADS category 4a lesions with an elasticity score of 1 had a malignancy rate of 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Sonoelastography has higher specificity than B-mode ultrasound in the differentiation between benign and malignant masses and has the potential to reduce biopsies with benign results. KEY POINTS: • Sonoelastography has higher specificity than B-mode ultrasound in distinguishing benign from malignant masses. • Sonoelastography could potentially help reduce the number of biopsies with benign results. • Lesion stiffness on sonoelastography correlated with the malignant potential of the lesion.
Authors: Yu-Mee Sohn; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Hee Jung Moon; Soo Jin Kim Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ximena Varas; José H Leborgne; Francisco Leborgne; Julieta Mezzera; Sylvia Jaumandreu; Felix Leborgne Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.959
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
Authors: Ekaterina V Gubarkova; Aleksander A Sovetsky; Dmitry A Vorontsov; Pavel A Buday; Marina A Sirotkina; Anton A Plekhanov; Sergey S Kuznetsov; Aleksander L Matveyev; Lev A Matveev; Sergey V Gamayunov; Alexey Y Vorontsov; Vladimir Y Zaitsev; Natalia D Gladkova Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Iacopo Vannozzi; Matteo Tesi; Marta Zangheri; Viola Maria Innocenti; Alessandra Rota; Simonetta Citi; Alessandro Poli Journal: Vet Res Commun Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 2.459
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
Authors: Ann Yi; Woo Kyung Moon; Nariya Cho; Jung Min Chang; Min Sun Bae; Seung Ja Kim; Wonshik Han; In-Ae Park Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 5.315