Literature DB >> 31175605

Simultaneous comparison between strain and shear wave elastography of breast masses for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions by qualitative and quantitative assessments.

Tomoyuki Fujioka1, Mio Mori1, Kazunori Kubota2, Yuka Kikuchi1, Leona Katsuta1, Mai Kasahara3, Goshi Oda3, Toshiyuki Ishiba3, Tsuyoshi Nakagawa3, Ukihide Tateishi1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the addition of diagnostic strain elastography (SE) and shear wave elastography (SWE) values to the conventional B-mode ultrasonography in differentiating between benign and malignant breast masses by qualitative and quantitative assessments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: B-mode ultrasound, SE, and SWE were simultaneously performed using one ultrasound system in 148 breast masses; 88 of them were malignant. The breast imaging reporting and data system category in the B-mode, Tsukuba score (SETsu), Fat-Lesion-Ratio (SEFLR) in SE, and five-point color assessment (SWEcol) and elasticity values (SWEela) in SWE were assessed. The results were compared using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULT: The AUC for B-mode and each elastography were similar (B-mode, 0.889; SETsu, 0.885; SEFLR, 0.875; SWEcol, 0.881; SWEela, 0.885; P > 0.05). The combined sets between B-mode and either of the elastography technique showed good diagnostic performance (B-mode + SETsu, 0.903; B-mode + SEFLR, 0.909; B-mode + SWEcol, 0.919; B-mode + SWEela, 0.914). B-mode + SWEcol and B-mode + SWEela showed a higher AUC than B-mode alone (P = 0.026 and 0.029), and B-mode + SETsu and B-mode + SEFLR showed comparable AUC to B-mode alone (P = 0.196 and 0.085). There was no significant difference between qualitative and quantitative assessments for the combined sets of B-mode and elastography (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The addition of both SE and SWE to B-mode ultrasound improved the diagnostic performance with increased AUC, and especially SWE was more useful than SE, and no significant difference was found between qualitative and quantitative assessments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast imaging; Elastography; Shear wave elastography; Strain elastography; Ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31175605     DOI: 10.1007/s12282-019-00985-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer        ISSN: 1340-6868            Impact factor:   4.239


  5 in total

1.  Compression optical coherence elastography versus strain ultrasound elastography for breast cancer detection and differentiation: pilot study.

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

2.  Evaluation of internal and shell stiffness in the differential diagnosis of breast non-mass lesions by shear wave elastography.

Authors:  Ping Xu; Mei Wu; Min Yang; Juan Xiao; Zheng-Min Ruan; Lan-Ying Wu
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  Determining the elastography strain ratio cut off value for differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Timothy Musila Mutala; Gladys N Mwango; Angeline Aywak; Dania Cioni; Emanuele Neri
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 3.909

4.  Which combination of different ultrasonography modalities is more appropriate to diagnose breast cancer?: A network meta-analysis (a PRISMA-compliant article).

Authors:  Yang Zhou; Jialing Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 1.817

5.  Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions

Authors:  Hale Turnaoğlu; Kemal Murat Haberal; Serdar Arslan; Meriç Yavuz Çolak; Funda Ulu Öztürk; Nihal Uslu
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 0.973

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.