OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which shear wave elastography (SWE) parameter proves most accurate in the differential diagnosis of solid breast masses. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six breast lesions in 139 consecutive women (mean age: 43.54 ± 9.94 years, range 21-88 years), who had been scheduled for ultrasound-guided breast biopsy, were included. Conventional ultrasound and SWE were performed in all women before biopsy procedures. Ultrasound BI-RADS final assessment and SWE parameters were recorded. Diagnostic performance of each SWE parameter was calculated and compared with those obtained when applying cut-off values of previously published data. Performance of conventional ultrasound and ultrasound combined with each parameter was also compared. RESULTS: Of the 156 breast masses, 120 (76.9 %) were benign and 36 (23.1 %) malignant. Maximum stiffness (Emax) with a cut-off of 82.3 kPa had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (Az) value compared with other SWE parameters, 0.860 (sensitivity 88.9 %, specificity 77.5 %, accuracy 80.1 %). Az values of conventional ultrasound combined with each SWE parameter showed lower (but not significantly) values than with conventional ultrasound alone. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum stiffness (82.3 kPa) provided the best diagnostic performance. However the overall diagnostic performance of ultrasound plus SWE was not significantly better than that of conventional ultrasound alone. KEY POINTS: • SWE offers new information over and above conventional breast ultrasound • Various SWE parameters were explored regarding distinction between benign and malignant lesions • An elasticity of 82.3 kPa appears optimal in differentiating solid breast masses • However, ultrasound plus SWE was not significantly better than conventional ultrasound alone.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which shear wave elastography (SWE) parameter proves most accurate in the differential diagnosis of solid breast masses. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six breast lesions in 139 consecutive women (mean age: 43.54 ± 9.94 years, range 21-88 years), who had been scheduled for ultrasound-guided breast biopsy, were included. Conventional ultrasound and SWE were performed in all women before biopsy procedures. Ultrasound BI-RADS final assessment and SWE parameters were recorded. Diagnostic performance of each SWE parameter was calculated and compared with those obtained when applying cut-off values of previously published data. Performance of conventional ultrasound and ultrasound combined with each parameter was also compared. RESULTS: Of the 156 breast masses, 120 (76.9 %) were benign and 36 (23.1 %) malignant. Maximum stiffness (Emax) with a cut-off of 82.3 kPa had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (Az) value compared with other SWE parameters, 0.860 (sensitivity 88.9 %, specificity 77.5 %, accuracy 80.1 %). Az values of conventional ultrasound combined with each SWE parameter showed lower (but not significantly) values than with conventional ultrasound alone. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum stiffness (82.3 kPa) provided the best diagnostic performance. However the overall diagnostic performance of ultrasound plus SWE was not significantly better than that of conventional ultrasound alone. KEY POINTS: • SWE offers new information over and above conventional breast ultrasound • Various SWE parameters were explored regarding distinction between benign and malignant lesions • An elasticity of 82.3 kPa appears optimal in differentiating solid breast masses • However, ultrasound plus SWE was not significantly better than conventional ultrasound alone.
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: Dawn M Regner; Gina K Hesley; Nicholas J Hangiandreou; Marilyn J Morton; Michelle R Nordland; Duane D Meixner; Timothy J Hall; Michael A Farrell; Jayawant N Mandrekar; W Scott Harmsen; J William Charboneau Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elizabeth S Burnside; Timothy J Hall; Amy M Sommer; Gina K Hesley; Gale A Sisney; William E Svensson; Jason P Fine; Jinfeng Jiang; Nicholas J Hangiandreou Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11 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