Karina Pesce1, Fernando Binder2, María José Chico3, María Paz Swiecicki3, Diana Herbas Galindo3, Sergio Terrasa4. 1. Breast Imaging and Interventional Radiology Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. drakarina.pesce@gmail.com. 2. Department of Health Informatics, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 3. Breast Imaging and Interventional Radiology Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 4. Research Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Abstract
STUDY AIMS: We sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative elastography (shear wave elastography) and to establish the optimal cutoff value to differentiate malignant and benign breast lesions using QelaXtoTM software. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult women with suspicious breast lesions (BIRADS 3, 4 or 5) who underwent programmed ultrasound-guided core biopsies. Breast lesions were assessed using quantitative elastography combined with B-mode ultrasound. Histopathology was used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were estimated, and a ROC curve analysis was conducted. Three elastography cutoff values were considered: 36, 50 and 80 kPa. RESULTS: We included 143 women (mean age of 56 years) with a total of 145 breast lesions: 68 benign tumors (47.26%) and 77 malignancies (52.74%). Mean elasticity measurements of benign and malignant lesions were significantly different (24.6 kPa, SD 28.47, vs. 101.49 kPa, SD 47.38, [Formula: see text]). Using the 50 kPa cutoff, elastography showed a global sensitivity of 87% to discriminate malignant lesions (AUC = 0.897). Moreover, sensitivity was 90.7% when lesions were located 5-40 mm below the skin surface (optimal elastographic field of view). Our false positive rate was 17.65%, comprised mainly of fibroepithelial neoplasms, fibroadenomas and fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative elastography can differentiate malignant and benign breast lesions with acceptable to excellent performance. In our sample, the QelaXtoTM software showed a lower optimal cutoff than other ultrasound systems.
STUDY AIMS: We sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative elastography (shear wave elastography) and to establish the optimal cutoff value to differentiate malignant and benign breast lesions using QelaXtoTM software. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult women with suspicious breast lesions (BIRADS 3, 4 or 5) who underwent programmed ultrasound-guided core biopsies. Breast lesions were assessed using quantitative elastography combined with B-mode ultrasound. Histopathology was used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were estimated, and a ROC curve analysis was conducted. Three elastography cutoff values were considered: 36, 50 and 80 kPa. RESULTS: We included 143 women (mean age of 56 years) with a total of 145 breast lesions: 68 benign tumors (47.26%) and 77 malignancies (52.74%). Mean elasticity measurements of benign and malignant lesions were significantly different (24.6 kPa, SD 28.47, vs. 101.49 kPa, SD 47.38, [Formula: see text]). Using the 50 kPa cutoff, elastography showed a global sensitivity of 87% to discriminate malignant lesions (AUC = 0.897). Moreover, sensitivity was 90.7% when lesions were located 5-40 mm below the skin surface (optimal elastographic field of view). Our false positive rate was 17.65%, comprised mainly of fibroepithelial neoplasms, fibroadenomas and fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative elastography can differentiate malignant and benign breast lesions with acceptable to excellent performance. In our sample, the QelaXtoTM software showed a lower optimal cutoff than other ultrasound systems.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Elasticity imaging techniques; Elastography; Mammary ultrasonography
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: 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: Rosa M S Sigrist; Joy Liau; Ahmed El Kaffas; Maria Cristina Chammas; Juergen K Willmann Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Marcella Massimini; Alessia Gloria; Mariarita Romanucci; Leonardo Della Salda; Lucia Di Francesco; Alberto Contri Journal: Vet Sci Date: 2022-09-15