Literature DB >> 32330993

US-Elastography for Breast Lesion Characterization: Prospective Comparison of US BIRADS, Strain Elastography and Shear wave Elastography.

Vito Cantisani1, Emanuele David2, Richard G Barr3, Maija Radzina4, Valeria de Soccio1, Daniela Elia1, Carlo De Felice1, Federica Pediconi1, Silvia Gigli5, Rossella Occhiato1, Daniela Messineo1, Daniele Fresilli1, Laura Ballesio1, Ferdinando D'Ambrosio1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of strain elastography (SE) and 2 D shear wave elastography (SWE) and SE/SWE combination in comparison with conventional multiparametric ultrasound (US) with respect to improving BI-RADS classification results and differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions using a qualitative and quantitative assessment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 130 histologically proven breast masses were evaluated with baseline US, color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS), SE and SWE (Toshiba Aplio 500 with a 7-15 MHz wide-band linear transducer). Each lesion was classified according to the BIRADS lexicon by evaluating the size, the B-mode and color Doppler features, the SE qualitative (point color scale) and SE semi-quantitative (strain ratio) methods, and quantitative SWE. Histological results were compared with BIRADS, strain ratio (SR) and shear wave elastography (SWE) all performed by one investigator blinded to the clinical examination and mammographic results at the time of the US examination. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of B-mode US, SE, SWE, and their combination.
RESULTS: Histological examination revealed 47 benign and 83 malignant breast lesions. The accuracy of SR was statistically significantly higher than SWE (sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 89.2 %, 76.6 % and 0.83 for SR and 72.3 %, 66.0 % and 0.69 for SWE, respectively, p = 0.003) but not higher than B-mode US (B-mode US sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 85.5 %, 78.8 %, 0.821, respectively, p = 1.000).
CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that conventional US in combination with both SE and SWE is a valid tool that can be useful in the clinical setting, can improve BIRADS category assessment and may help in the differentiation of benign from malignant breast lesions, with SE having higher accuracy than SWE. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32330993     DOI: 10.1055/a-1134-4937

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultraschall Med        ISSN: 0172-4614            Impact factor:   6.548


  4 in total

1.  Feasibility of Shear Wave Elastography Imaging for Evaluating the Biological Behavior of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Chaoxu Liu; Jin Zhou; Cai Chang; Wenxiang Zhi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 6.244

2.  Usefulness of new shear wave elastography in early predicting the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer: where and when to measure is optimal?

Authors:  Jiong-Hui Gu; Chang He; Qi-Yu Zhao; Tian-An Jiang
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Can strain US-elastography with strain ratio (SRE) improve the diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of breast lesions? Preliminary results.

Authors:  Daniela Elia; Daniele Fresilli; Patrizia Pacini; Sara Cardaccio; Giorgia Polti; Olga Guiban; Ilaria Celletti; Eriselda Kutrolli; Carlo De Felice; Rossella Occhiato; Corrado De Vito; Maria Ida Amabile; Alessandro De Luca; Vito D'Andrea; Massimo Vergine; Federica Pediconi; Ferdinando D'Ambrosio; Vito Cantisani
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2020-07-10

4.  Added Value of a New Strain Elastography Technique in Conventional Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Breast Masses: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Qi Wei; Yu-Jing Yan; Ge-Ge Wu; Xi-Rong Ye; Fan Jiang; Jie Liu; Gang Wang; Yi Wang; Yu Wang; Zhi-Ping Pan; Jin-Hua Hu; Juan Song; Christoph F Dietrich; Xin-Wu Cui
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 6.244

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.