OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare the diagnostic performances of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) shear-wave elastography (SWE) for differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. METHODS: B-mode ultrasound and SWE were performed for 134 consecutive women with 144 breast masses before biopsy. Quantitative elasticity values (maximum and mean elasticity in the stiffest portion of mass, Emax and Emean; lesion-to-fat elasticity ratio, Erat) were measured with both 2D and 3D SWE. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of B-mode, 2D, 3D SWE and combined data of B-mode and SWE were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-seven of the 144 breast masses (47 %) were malignant. Overall, higher elasticity values of 3D SWE than 2D SWE were noted for both benign and malignant masses. The AUC for 2D and 3D SWE were not significantly different: Emean, 0.938 vs 0.928; Emax, 0.939 vs 0.930; Erat, 0.907 vs 0.871. Either 2D or 3D SWE significantly improved the specificity of B-mode ultrasound from 29.9 % (23 of 77) up to 71.4 % (55 of 77) and 63.6 % (49 of 77) without a significant change in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional and 3D SWE performed equally in distinguishing benign from malignant masses and both techniques improved the specificity of B-mode ultrasound.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare the diagnostic performances of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) shear-wave elastography (SWE) for differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. METHODS: B-mode ultrasound and SWE were performed for 134 consecutive women with 144 breast masses before biopsy. Quantitative elasticity values (maximum and mean elasticity in the stiffest portion of mass, Emax and Emean; lesion-to-fat elasticity ratio, Erat) were measured with both 2D and 3D SWE. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of B-mode, 2D, 3D SWE and combined data of B-mode and SWE were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-seven of the 144 breast masses (47 %) were malignant. Overall, higher elasticity values of 3D SWE than 2D SWE were noted for both benign and malignant masses. The AUC for 2D and 3D SWE were not significantly different: Emean, 0.938 vs 0.928; Emax, 0.939 vs 0.930; Erat, 0.907 vs 0.871. Either 2D or 3D SWE significantly improved the specificity of B-mode ultrasound from 29.9 % (23 of 77) up to 71.4 % (55 of 77) and 63.6 % (49 of 77) without a significant change in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional and 3D SWE performed equally in distinguishing benign from malignant masses and both techniques improved the specificity of B-mode ultrasound.
Authors: Francesca Galardi; Catherine Oakman; Maria Caterina Truglia; Silvia Cappadona; Annibale Biggeri; Laura Grisotto; Lisa Giovannelli; Silvia Bessi; Augusto Giannini; Laura Biganzoli; Libero Santarpia; Angelo Di Leo Journal: Breast Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Wendie A Berg; David O Cosgrove; Caroline J Doré; Fritz K W Schäfer; William E Svensson; Regina J Hooley; Ralf Ohlinger; Ellen B Mendelson; Catherine Balu-Maestro; Martina Locatelli; Christophe Tourasse; Barbara C Cavanaugh; Valérie Juhan; A Thomas Stavros; Anne Tardivon; Joel Gay; Jean-Pierre Henry; Claude Cohen-Bacrie Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew Evans; Patsy Whelehan; Kim Thomson; Denis McLean; Katrin Brauer; Colin Purdie; Lee Jordan; Lee Baker; Alastair Thompson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Xin-Wu Cui; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Chiara De Molo; Andre Ignee; Dagmar Schreiber-Dietrich; Christoph F Dietrich Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Deniz Çebi Olgun; Bora Korkmazer; Fahrettin Kılıç; Atilla Süleyman Dikici; Mehmet Velidedeoğlu; Fatih Aydoğan; Fatih Kantarcı; Mehmet Halit Yılmaz Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Jung Min Chang; In Ae Park; Su Hyun Lee; Won Hwa Kim; Min Sun Bae; Hye Ryoung Koo; Ann Yi; Seung Ja Kim; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 5.315