Yan Ma1, Shuo Zhang2, Jing Li1, Jianyi Li3, Ye Kang4, Weidong Ren5. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China. 2. Department of Neurology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China. 3. Department of Breast Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China. 4. Department of Pathology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China. 5. Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China. renwdcmu@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performances of strain elastography (SE) and shear-wave elastography (SWE) for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This prospective study recruited 71 eligible patients from June 2014 to May 2016. All patients provided written informed consent. Tumour stiffness was assessed by the SE strain ratio (R), SWE maximum elasticity (Emax) and SWE mean elasticity (Emean). Ultrasonic elastography (UE) assessments were performed at each NACT cycle (t1 - t6). For the purpose of predicting, the relative changes in elastographic parameters after the first and second NACT cycles were considered as the variables [Δ(t1) and Δ(t2)]. The area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUC) curve was compared. RESULTS: ΔEmean(t2) and R2 displayed the best diagnostic performances within their own modalities (AUC = 0.93 and 0.90 for predicting favourable response to NACT; AUC = 0.92 and 0.78 for predicting NACT resistance, respectively). There were no significant differences in AUCs for ΔEmean(t2) and some UE parameters (P > 0.05). By contrast, ΔEmean(t2) was significantly superior to all other SE parameters for predicting resistance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SE and SWE exhibited similar performances for predicting favourable NACT responses; SWE was better than SE for predicting NACT resistance. KEY POINTS: • Elastography parameters after the second NACT cycle showed the best diagnostic performances. • SWE and SE yielded similar diagnostic performances in predicting favourable responses. • SWE performed better than SE in predicting the pathological resistance to NACT. • Discrepant results may be due to the breast thickness and lesion depth.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performances of strain elastography (SE) and shear-wave elastography (SWE) for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This prospective study recruited 71 eligible patients from June 2014 to May 2016. All patients provided written informed consent. Tumour stiffness was assessed by the SE strain ratio (R), SWE maximum elasticity (Emax) and SWE mean elasticity (Emean). Ultrasonic elastography (UE) assessments were performed at each NACT cycle (t1 - t6). For the purpose of predicting, the relative changes in elastographic parameters after the first and second NACT cycles were considered as the variables [Δ(t1) and Δ(t2)]. The area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUC) curve was compared. RESULTS: ΔEmean(t2) and R2 displayed the best diagnostic performances within their own modalities (AUC = 0.93 and 0.90 for predicting favourable response to NACT; AUC = 0.92 and 0.78 for predicting NACT resistance, respectively). There were no significant differences in AUCs for ΔEmean(t2) and some UE parameters (P > 0.05). By contrast, ΔEmean(t2) was significantly superior to all other SE parameters for predicting resistance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SE and SWE exhibited similar performances for predicting favourable NACT responses; SWE was better than SE for predicting NACT resistance. KEY POINTS: • Elastography parameters after the second NACT cycle showed the best diagnostic performances. • SWE and SE yielded similar diagnostic performances in predicting favourable responses. • SWE performed better than SE in predicting the pathological resistance to NACT. • Discrepant results may be due to the breast thickness and lesion depth.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Predict; Shear-wave elastography; Strain elastography
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: C Balleyguier; L Ciolovan; S Ammari; S Canale; S Sethom; R Al Rouhbane; P Vielh; C Dromain Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 4.026
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Florentia Peintinger; Christos Hatzis; Radhika Rajan; Henry Kuerer; Vicente Valero; Lina Assad; Anna Poniecka; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Juanjuan Gu; Eric C Polley; Max Denis; Jodi M Carter; Sandhya Pruthi; Adriana V Gregory; Judy C Boughey; Robert T Fazzio; Mostafa Fatemi; Azra Alizad Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 8.408