PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the correlations between the elasticity values of solid breast masses and histopathological findings to define cutoff elasticity values differentiating malignant from benign lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 115 solid breast lesions of 109 consecutive patients were evaluated prospectively using shear wave elastography (SWE). Two orthogonal elastographic images of each lesion were obtained. Minimum, mean, and maximum elasticity values were calculated in regions of interest placed over the stiffest areas on the two images; we also calculated mass/fat elasticity ratios. Correlation of elastographic measurements with histopathological results were studied. RESULTS: Eighty-three benign and thirty-two malignant lesions were histopathologically diagnosed. The minimum, mean, and maximum elasticity values, and the mass/fat elasticity ratios of malignant lesions, were significantly higher than those of benign lesions. The cutoff value was 45.7 kPa for mean elasticity (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 95%), 54.3 kPa for maximum elasticity (sensitivity, 95%; specificity, 94%), 37.1 kPa for minimum elasticity (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 95%), and 4.6 for the mass/fat elasticity ratio (sensitivity, 97%; specificity, 95%). CONCLUSION: SWE yields additional valuable quantitative data to ultrasonographic examination on solid breast lesions. SWE may serve as a complementary tool for diagnosis of breast lesions. Long-term clinical studies are required to accurately select lesions requiring biopsy.
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the correlations between the elasticity values of solid breast masses and histopathological findings to define cutoff elasticity values differentiating malignant from benign lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 115 solid breast lesions of 109 consecutive patients were evaluated prospectively using shear wave elastography (SWE). Two orthogonal elastographic images of each lesion were obtained. Minimum, mean, and maximum elasticity values were calculated in regions of interest placed over the stiffest areas on the two images; we also calculated mass/fat elasticity ratios. Correlation of elastographic measurements with histopathological results were studied. RESULTS: Eighty-three benign and thirty-two malignant lesions were histopathologically diagnosed. The minimum, mean, and maximum elasticity values, and the mass/fat elasticity ratios of malignant lesions, were significantly higher than those of benign lesions. The cutoff value was 45.7 kPa for mean elasticity (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 95%), 54.3 kPa for maximum elasticity (sensitivity, 95%; specificity, 94%), 37.1 kPa for minimum elasticity (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 95%), and 4.6 for the mass/fat elasticity ratio (sensitivity, 97%; specificity, 95%). CONCLUSION: SWE yields additional valuable quantitative data to ultrasonographic examination on solid breast lesions. SWE may serve as a complementary tool for diagnosis of breast lesions. Long-term clinical studies are required to accurately select lesions requiring biopsy.
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: Jacques Ferlay; Hai-Rim Shin; Freddie Bray; David Forman; Colin Mathers; Donald Maxwell Parkin Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jung Min Chang; Woo Kyung Moon; Nariya Cho; Ann Yi; Hye Ryoung Koo; Wonsik Han; Dong-Young Noh; Hyeong-Gon Moon; Seung Ja Kim Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: László Tabár; Bedrich Vitak; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Anders Cohen; Tibor Tot; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Johan Rosell; Helena Fohlin; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cristina M Checka; Jennifer E Chun; Freya R Schnabel; Jiyon Lee; Hildegard Toth Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Arun Thitaikumar; Louise M Mobbs; Christina M Kraemer-Chant; Brian S Garra; Jonathan Ophir Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-08-13 Impact factor: 3.609
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: David O Cosgrove; Wendie A Berg; Caroline J Doré; Danny M Skyba; Jean-Pierre Henry; Joel Gay; Claude Cohen-Bacrie Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-12-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wei Lin Ng; Kartini Rahmat; Farhana Fadzli; Faizatul Izza Rozalli; Mohammad Nazri Mohd-Shah; Patricia Ann Chandran; Caroline Judy Westerhout; Anushya Vijayananthan; Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Hyo Jin Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Bohyoung Kim; Bo La Yun; Mijung Jang; Yousun Ko; Soo Hyun Lee; Heeyeong Jeong; Jung Min Chang; Nariya Cho Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 4.379