BACKGROUND: Elastography is a new promising ultrasonographic technique which is used to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions based on the stiffness of the lesion. PURPOSE: To determine the role of strain elastography in characterisation of breast lesions and to compare the diagnostic performances of strain elastography and conventional ultrasound (US). METHODS: In total, 113 breast lesions in 100 women were prospectively evaluated by US and strain elastography followed by the histopathological examination. Elastography score based on the Tsukuba colour scale and strain ratio were determined for each lesion. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for each modality and the diagnostic performances were compared. The best cut-off point was calculated for each of the elastography parameters using the receiver operator curve analysis. RESULTS: Out of the 113 lesions, 40 were malignant (35.4%) and 73 were benign (64.6%). The area under the curve for elastography score showed significant difference with that of US: 0.98 versus 0.90 (Difference = 0.08, p =0.02). The elastography parameters were more specific as compared to US (ES-95 and SR-93% vs. 63%, p < 0.05) with a high negative predictive value. The combined use of elastography and US gave better results with 95% sensitivity, 94% specificity, 94% accuracy and negative predictive value reaching 97%. CONCLUSION: Strain elastography is a useful adjunct to conventional ultrasonography. The combined use of strain elastography and ultrasound improves the characterisation of breast lesions and helps in down-staging of assigned BI-RADS category, thereby avoiding unnecessary biopsies. ES is the most useful elastography parameter to differentiate between benign and malignant breast lesions.
BACKGROUND: Elastography is a new promising ultrasonographic technique which is used to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions based on the stiffness of the lesion. PURPOSE: To determine the role of strain elastography in characterisation of breast lesions and to compare the diagnostic performances of strain elastography and conventional ultrasound (US). METHODS: In total, 113 breast lesions in 100 women were prospectively evaluated by US and strain elastography followed by the histopathological examination. Elastography score based on the Tsukuba colour scale and strain ratio were determined for each lesion. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for each modality and the diagnostic performances were compared. The best cut-off point was calculated for each of the elastography parameters using the receiver operator curve analysis. RESULTS: Out of the 113 lesions, 40 were malignant (35.4%) and 73 were benign (64.6%). The area under the curve for elastography score showed significant difference with that of US: 0.98 versus 0.90 (Difference = 0.08, p =0.02). The elastography parameters were more specific as compared to US (ES-95 and SR-93% vs. 63%, p < 0.05) with a high negative predictive value. The combined use of elastography and US gave better results with 95% sensitivity, 94% specificity, 94% accuracy and negative predictive value reaching 97%. CONCLUSION: Strain elastography is a useful adjunct to conventional ultrasonography. The combined use of strain elastography and ultrasound improves the characterisation of breast lesions and helps in down-staging of assigned BI-RADS category, thereby avoiding unnecessary biopsies. ES is the most useful elastography parameter to differentiate between benign and malignant breast lesions.
Authors: Anke Thomas; Friedrich Degenhardt; André Farrokh; Sebastian Wojcinski; Torsten Slowinski; Thomas Fischer Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-02-20 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Richard G Barr; Stamatia Destounis; Logan B Lackey; William E Svensson; Corinne Balleyguier; Carmel Smith Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.153
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