OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the interobserver agreement and the diagnostic performance of 3D shear-wave elastography (SWE) for breast lesions in comparison with 2D SWE. METHODS: A total of 163 breast lesions (malignant 48, benign 115) in 146 women who underwent B-mode ultrasound and SWE before biopsy were included. Two radiologists reviewed six data sets (B-mode, SWE, and a combination of both for 2D and 3D ultrasound). B-mode and SWE features were recorded. BI-RADS category was assigned for B-mode and combined sets. Interobserver variability was assessed using the κ statistic. Diagnostic performance of each data set was evaluated using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: SWE showed substantial to almost perfect agreement, with Ehomo in 2D SWE being higher than in 3D SWE. The AUC of 2D SWE was higher than 3D SWE for all SWE features, significantly so for Ecol (0.933 vs. 0.867, P = 0.002) and Emax (0.961 vs. 0.874, P = 0.006). After adding SWE to B-mode ultrasound, the AUC in 2D ultrasound increased significantly (0.968 vs. 0.912, P = 0.008), but 3D ultrasound showed no significant difference (0.966 vs. 0.935; P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: For 3D SWE, interobserver agreement was good, but the diagnostic performance was inferior to 2D SWE even after adding to B-mode ultrasound. KEY POINTS: • Shear-wave elastography (SWE) provides further diagnostic information during breast ultrasound. • 3D SWE diagnostic performance is inferior to 2D SWE. • In 3D SWE, interobserver agreement was good. • 2D B-mode ultrasound showed significant diagnostic improvement when combined with 2D SWE. • 3D B-mode ultrasound performance was not significantly improved when combined with 3D SWE.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the interobserver agreement and the diagnostic performance of 3D shear-wave elastography (SWE) for breast lesions in comparison with 2D SWE. METHODS: A total of 163 breast lesions (malignant 48, benign 115) in 146 women who underwent B-mode ultrasound and SWE before biopsy were included. Two radiologists reviewed six data sets (B-mode, SWE, and a combination of both for 2D and 3D ultrasound). B-mode and SWE features were recorded. BI-RADS category was assigned for B-mode and combined sets. Interobserver variability was assessed using the κ statistic. Diagnostic performance of each data set was evaluated using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: SWE showed substantial to almost perfect agreement, with Ehomo in 2D SWE being higher than in 3D SWE. The AUC of 2D SWE was higher than 3D SWE for all SWE features, significantly so for Ecol (0.933 vs. 0.867, P = 0.002) and Emax (0.961 vs. 0.874, P = 0.006). After adding SWE to B-mode ultrasound, the AUC in 2D ultrasound increased significantly (0.968 vs. 0.912, P = 0.008), but 3D ultrasound showed no significant difference (0.966 vs. 0.935; P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: For 3D SWE, interobserver agreement was good, but the diagnostic performance was inferior to 2D SWE even after adding to B-mode ultrasound. KEY POINTS: • Shear-wave elastography (SWE) provides further diagnostic information during breast ultrasound. • 3D SWE diagnostic performance is inferior to 2D SWE. • In 3D SWE, interobserver agreement was good. • 2D B-mode ultrasound showed significant diagnostic improvement when combined with 2D SWE. • 3D B-mode ultrasound performance was not significantly improved when combined with 3D SWE.
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: Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mickael Tanter; Jeremy Bercoff; Alexandra Athanasiou; Thomas Deffieux; Jean-Luc Gennisson; Gabriel Montaldo; Marie Muller; Anne Tardivon; Mathias Fink Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 2.998
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: Antonio Luigi Pastore; Giovanni Palleschi; Piero Maceroni; Giorgia Manfredonia; Domenico Autieri; Jessica Cacciotti; Barbara Sardella; Natale Porta; Vincenzo Petrozza; Antonio Carbone Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 3.909