OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of strain and shear wave elastography of breast masses for quantitative assessment in differentiating benign and malignant lesions and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined strain and shear wave elastography. METHODS: Between January and February 2016, 37 women with 45 breast masses underwent both strain and shear wave ultrasound (US) elastographic examinations. The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment on B-mode US imaging was assessed. We calculated strain ratios for strain elastography and the mean elasticity value and elasticity ratio of the lesion to fat for shear wave elastography. Diagnostic performances were compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: The 37 women had a mean age of 47.4 years (range, 20-79 years). Of the 45 lesions, 20 were malignant, and 25 were benign. The AUCs for elasticity values on strain and shear wave elastography showed no significant differences (strain ratio, 0.929; mean elasticity, 0.898; and elasticity ratio, 0.868; P > .05). After selectively downgrading BI-RADS category 4a lesions based on strain and shear wave elastographic cutoffs, the AUCs for the combined sets of B-mode US and elastography were improved (B-mode + strain, 0.940; B-mode + shear wave; 0.964; and B-mode, 0.724; P < .001). Combined strain and shear wave elastography showed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than each individual elastographic modality (P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results showed that strain and shear wave elastography had similar diagnostic performance. The addition of strain and shear wave elastography to B-mode US improved diagnostic performance. The combination of strain and shear wave elastography results in a higher diagnostic yield than each individual elastographic modality.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of strain and shear wave elastography of breast masses for quantitative assessment in differentiating benign and malignant lesions and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined strain and shear wave elastography. METHODS: Between January and February 2016, 37 women with 45 breast masses underwent both strain and shear wave ultrasound (US) elastographic examinations. The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment on B-mode US imaging was assessed. We calculated strain ratios for strain elastography and the mean elasticity value and elasticity ratio of the lesion to fat for shear wave elastography. Diagnostic performances were compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: The 37 women had a mean age of 47.4 years (range, 20-79 years). Of the 45 lesions, 20 were malignant, and 25 were benign. The AUCs for elasticity values on strain and shear wave elastography showed no significant differences (strain ratio, 0.929; mean elasticity, 0.898; and elasticity ratio, 0.868; P > .05). After selectively downgrading BI-RADS category 4a lesions based on strain and shear wave elastographic cutoffs, the AUCs for the combined sets of B-mode US and elastography were improved (B-mode + strain, 0.940; B-mode + shear wave; 0.964; and B-mode, 0.724; P < .001). Combined strain and shear wave elastography showed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than each individual elastographic modality (P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results showed that strain and shear wave elastography had similar diagnostic performance. The addition of strain and shear wave elastography to B-mode US improved diagnostic performance. The combination of strain and shear wave elastography results in a higher diagnostic yield than each individual elastographic modality.
Authors: Ekaterina V Gubarkova; Aleksander A Sovetsky; Dmitry A Vorontsov; Pavel A Buday; Marina A Sirotkina; Anton A Plekhanov; Sergey S Kuznetsov; Aleksander L Matveyev; Lev A Matveev; Sergey V Gamayunov; Alexey Y Vorontsov; Vladimir Y Zaitsev; Natalia D Gladkova Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Ekaterina V Gubarkova; Aleksander A Sovetsky; Lev A Matveev; Aleksander L Matveyev; Dmitry A Vorontsov; Anton A Plekhanov; Sergey S Kuznetsov; Sergey V Gamayunov; Alexey Y Vorontsov; Marina A Sirotkina; Natalia D Gladkova; Vladimir Y Zaitsev Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.748
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