Na Young Jung1, Chang Suk Park2, Sung Hun Kim3, Hyun Seouk Jung4, Kijun Kim4, Jung Whee Lee4, Yu Ri Shin4, Se-Jeong Oh5. 1. Department of Radiology, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 327, Sosa-ro, Wonmi-gu, Bucheon, 14647, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56, Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 21431, Korea. blounse@catholic.ac.kr. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56, Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 21431, Korea. 5. Department of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56, Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 21431, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the reference fat position influenced the calculation of the sonoelastographic strain ratio. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-eight breast masses (256 benign lesions and 102 malignant lesions) in 300 women (mean age 47.4 years; age range 17-82 years) who had been scheduled for a percutaneous needle biopsy or surgical excision were examined using B-mode ultrasonography and elastography. The sonoelastographic strain ratio was calculated twice per lesion; once by dividing the strain value of the fat near the mass by that of the mass (FLR 1) and once by dividing the strain value of the subcutaneous fat by that of the mass (FLR 2). RESULTS: Most (91.9 %) showed a difference of less than 0.5 between FLR 1 and FLR 2 values. Regardless of the position of reference fat, there was no statistically significant difference between the FLR 1 and FLR 2 values (p value = 0.077 and 0.0825, respectively). According to the pathology of the lesion, a difference between FLR 1 and FLR 2 less than 0.5 occurred in 95.3 % of the benign lesions and 84 % of the malignant lesions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The sonoelastographic strain ratio was not significantly affected by the position of reference fat.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the reference fat position influenced the calculation of the sonoelastographic strain ratio. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-eight breast masses (256 benign lesions and 102 malignant lesions) in 300 women (mean age 47.4 years; age range 17-82 years) who had been scheduled for a percutaneous needle biopsy or surgical excision were examined using B-mode ultrasonography and elastography. The sonoelastographic strain ratio was calculated twice per lesion; once by dividing the strain value of the fat near the mass by that of the mass (FLR 1) and once by dividing the strain value of the subcutaneous fat by that of the mass (FLR 2). RESULTS: Most (91.9 %) showed a difference of less than 0.5 between FLR 1 and FLR 2 values. Regardless of the position of reference fat, there was no statistically significant difference between the FLR 1 and FLR 2 values (p value = 0.077 and 0.0825, respectively). According to the pathology of the lesion, a difference between FLR 1 and FLR 2 less than 0.5 occurred in 95.3 % of the benign lesions and 84 % of the malignant lesions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The sonoelastographic strain ratio was not significantly affected by the position of reference fat.
Entities:
Keywords:
Elasticity score; Sonoelastography; Strain ratio
Authors: Anke Thomas; Friedrich Degenhardt; André Farrokh; Sebastian Wojcinski; Torsten Slowinski; Thomas Fischer Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-02-20 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: A Stachs; S Hartmann; J Stubert; M Dieterich; A Martin; G Kundt; T Reimer; B Gerber Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: J Bamber; D Cosgrove; C F Dietrich; J Fromageau; J Bojunga; F Calliada; V Cantisani; J-M Correas; M D'Onofrio; E E Drakonaki; M Fink; M Friedrich-Rust; O H Gilja; R F Havre; C Jenssen; A S Klauser; R Ohlinger; A Saftoiu; F Schaefer; I Sporea; F Piscaglia Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: D Cosgrove; F Piscaglia; J Bamber; J Bojunga; J-M Correas; O H Gilja; A S Klauser; I Sporea; F Calliada; V Cantisani; M D'Onofrio; E E Drakonaki; M Fink; M Friedrich-Rust; J Fromageau; R F Havre; C Jenssen; R Ohlinger; A Săftoiu; F Schaefer; C F Dietrich Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: T Fischer; U Peisker; S Fiedor; T Slowinski; P Wedemeyer; F Diekmann; M Grigoryev; A Thomas Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 6.548