Hye Young Choi1, Mirinae Seo1, Yu-Mee Sohn1, Ji Hye Hwang2, Eun Jee Song1, Sun Young Min3, Hye Jin Kang2, Dong Yoon Han2. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine , Seoul , South Korea. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University , Seoul , South Korea. 3. 3 Department of Surgery, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine , Seoul , South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the diagnostic performance of B-mode ultrasound, shear wave elastography (SWE), and combined B-mode ultrasound and SWE in small breast lesions (≤ 2 cm), and evaluated the factors associated with false SWE results. METHODS: A total of 428 small breast lesions (≤ 2 cm) of 415 consecutive patients between August 2013 and February 2017 were included. The diagnostic performance of each set was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. Histologic diagnosis was used as reference standard. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified the factors associated with false SWE results. RESULTS: Of 428 lesions, 142 (33.2%) were malignant and 286 (66.8%) were benign. The AUC of the combined modality was higher than that of B-mode ultrasound (0.792 vs 0.572, p < 0.001) and that of SWE was higher than that of B-mode ultrasound (0.718 vs 0.572, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the smaller lesion size and in situ cancer were associated with false negative, and patient's age, high-risk lesion, shorter distance from the skin or chest wall, and deeper breast thickness were associated with false positive (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of SWE to B-mode ultrasound could improve the diagnostic performance in ≤ 2 cm lesions. However, ultrasound lesion size, pathology, and lesion location are likely to affect the SWE value and result in false results. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Despite the diagnostic usefulness of SWE in small breast lesions (≤ 2 cm), ultrasound lesion size, pathology, and lesion location were associated with false results.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the diagnostic performance of B-mode ultrasound, shear wave elastography (SWE), and combined B-mode ultrasound and SWE in small breast lesions (≤ 2 cm), and evaluated the factors associated with false SWE results. METHODS: A total of 428 small breast lesions (≤ 2 cm) of 415 consecutive patients between August 2013 and February 2017 were included. The diagnostic performance of each set was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. Histologic diagnosis was used as reference standard. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified the factors associated with false SWE results. RESULTS: Of 428 lesions, 142 (33.2%) were malignant and 286 (66.8%) were benign. The AUC of the combined modality was higher than that of B-mode ultrasound (0.792 vs 0.572, p < 0.001) and that of SWE was higher than that of B-mode ultrasound (0.718 vs 0.572, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the smaller lesion size and in situ cancer were associated with false negative, and patient's age, high-risk lesion, shorter distance from the skin or chest wall, and deeper breast thickness were associated with false positive (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of SWE to B-mode ultrasound could improve the diagnostic performance in ≤ 2 cm lesions. However, ultrasound lesion size, pathology, and lesion location are likely to affect the SWE value and result in false results. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Despite the diagnostic usefulness of SWE in small breast lesions (≤ 2 cm), ultrasound lesion size, pathology, and lesion location were associated with false results.
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: 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: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
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