Jung Hyun Yoon1, Hae Kyoung Jung, Jong Tae Lee, Kyung Hee Ko. 1. Department of Radiology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, School of Medicine, 351 Yatapdong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-712, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors that have an effect on false-positive or false-negative shear-wave elastography (SWE) results in solid breast masses. METHODS: From June to December 2012, 222 breast lesions of 199 consecutive women (mean age: 45.3 ± 10.1 years; range, 21 to 88 years) who had been scheduled for biopsy or surgical excision were included. Greyscale ultrasound and SWE were performed in all women before biopsy. Final ultrasound assessments and SWE parameters (pattern classification and maximum elasticity) were recorded and compared with histopathology results. Patient and lesion factors in the 'true' and 'false' groups were compared. RESULTS: Of the 222 masses, 175 (78.8 %) were benign, and 47 (21.2 %) were malignant. False-positive rates of benign masses were significantly higher than false-negative rates of malignancy in SWE patterns, 36.6 % to 6.4 % (P < 0.001). Among both benign and malignant masses, factors showing significance among false SWE features were lesion size, breast thickness and lesion depth (all P < 0.05). All 47 malignant breast masses had SWE images of good quality. CONCLUSIONS: False SWE features were more significantly seen in benign masses. Lesion size, breast thickness and lesion depth have significance in producing false results, and this needs consideration in SWE image acquisition. KEY POINTS: • Shear-wave elastography (SWE) is widely used during breast imaging • At SWE, false-positive rates were significantly higher than false-negative rates • Larger size, breast thickness, depth and fair quality influences false-positive SWE features • Smaller size, larger breast thickness and depth influences false-negative SWE features.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors that have an effect on false-positive or false-negative shear-wave elastography (SWE) results in solid breast masses. METHODS: From June to December 2012, 222 breast lesions of 199 consecutive women (mean age: 45.3 ± 10.1 years; range, 21 to 88 years) who had been scheduled for biopsy or surgical excision were included. Greyscale ultrasound and SWE were performed in all women before biopsy. Final ultrasound assessments and SWE parameters (pattern classification and maximum elasticity) were recorded and compared with histopathology results. Patient and lesion factors in the 'true' and 'false' groups were compared. RESULTS: Of the 222 masses, 175 (78.8 %) were benign, and 47 (21.2 %) were malignant. False-positive rates of benign masses were significantly higher than false-negative rates of malignancy in SWE patterns, 36.6 % to 6.4 % (P < 0.001). Among both benign and malignant masses, factors showing significance among false SWE features were lesion size, breast thickness and lesion depth (all P < 0.05). All 47 malignant breast masses had SWE images of good quality. CONCLUSIONS: False SWE features were more significantly seen in benign masses. Lesion size, breast thickness and lesion depth have significance in producing false results, and this needs consideration in SWE image acquisition. KEY POINTS: • Shear-wave elastography (SWE) is widely used during breast imaging • At SWE, false-positive rates were significantly higher than false-negative rates • Larger size, breast thickness, depth and fair quality influences false-positive SWE features • Smaller size, larger breast thickness and depth influences false-negative SWE features.
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 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
Authors: A Evans; P Whelehan; K Thomson; K Brauer; L Jordan; C Purdie; D McLean; L Baker; S Vinnicombe; A Thompson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Karina Pesce; Fernando Binder; María José Chico; María Paz Swiecicki; Diana Herbas Galindo; Sergio Terrasa Journal: J Ultrasound Date: 2020-06-11
Authors: Jacob Kohlenberg; Juanjuan Gu; Ahmad Parvinian; Jeremy Webb; Omar El Kawkgi; Nicholas B Larson; Mabel Ryder; Mostafa Fatemi; Azra Alizad Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: S J Vinnicombe; P Whelehan; K Thomson; D McLean; C A Purdie; L B Jordan; S Hubbard; A J Evans Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.315