Accuracy of tumor size measurement: comparison of B-mode ultrasound,strain elastography,and 2D and 3D shear wave elastography with histopathological lesion size

Abstract

Background

Predicting the exact extent of a breast tumor is of great importance for oncologic treatment strategies. Different types of elastography can be used as new tools for measuring lesion size.

Purpose

To provide evidence regarding the accuracy of tumor size measurement of strain elastography (SE), two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) shear wave elastography (SWE), and conventional B-image ultrasound.

Material and Methods

In this prospective study, the diameter of 105 malignant breast lesions was measured by SE, 2D and 3D SWE, and B-mode ultrasound. The histopathological lesion size was compared to all imaging-based measuring methods.

Results

The mean lesion size of all breast carcinomas was 1.54 cm. B-mode ultrasound underestimates breast cancer size in 65.7 % of all cases in this study (P < 0.0001). Mean lesion size was more accurately determined by SE, 2D and 3D SWE compared to B-mode ultrasound. Absolute differences between measured and actual lesion are smaller for B-mode ultrasound (0.26 cm) than for SE (0.41 cm) and 2D and 3D SWE (0.41 cm and 0.44 cm, respectively).

Conclusion

B-mode ultrasound allows more accurate lesion size measurement than SE and 2D or 3D SWE but has a significantly higher risk of underestimating tumor size which could lead to incomplete margins during surgery. 3D SWE was not superior to 2D SWE or SE but by trend more precise in predicting the size of invasive lobular carcinoma.

Keywords

Ultrasound breast elastography

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sadigh

Carlos

Neal

et al.

Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound elastography for differentiation of malignant and benign breast abnormalities: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 134: 923–931.

Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, et al. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Acad Radiol 2010;17:558–563.

Farrokh A, Wojcinski S and Degenhardt F. Evaluation of real-time tissue sono-elastography in the assessment of 214 breast lesions: limitations of this method resulting from different histologic subtypes, tumor size and tumor localization. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013;39:2264–2271.

Garra

. Elastography: history, principles, and technique comparison. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40: 680–697.

Dietrich CF, Barr RG, Farrokh A, et al. Strain Elastography – How To Do It? Ultrasound Int Open 2017;3:E137–E149.

Meier-Meitinger

Haberle

Fasching

et al.

Assessment of breast cancer tumour size using six different methods. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 1180–1187.

Mullen

Thompson

Moussa

et al.

Shear-wave elastography contributes to accurate tumour size estimation when assessing small breast cancers. Clin Radiol 2014; 69: 1259–1263.

Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DK, AWFM). S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Version 4.0, 2017 AWMF Registernummer:032-045OL. Available at: http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/mammakarzinom/.

Havre

Elde

Gilja

et al.

Freehand real-time elastography: impact of scanning parameters on image quality and in vitro intra- and interobserver validations. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008; 34: 1638–1650.

10.

Dixon

Newlands

Dodds

et al.

Association between underestimation of tumour size by imaging and incomplete excision in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Br J Surg 2016; 103: 830–838.

11.

Hieken

Harrison

Herreros

et al.

Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg 2001; 182: 351–354.

12.

Wang

Chang

Song

et al.

Comparison of primary breast cancer size by mammography and sonography. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15: 9759–9761.

13.

Madjar

Ladner

Sauerbrei

et al.

Preoperative staging of breast cancer by palpation, mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993; 3: 185–190.

14.

Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:238–253.

15.

Bamber, J., D. Cosgrove, C.F. Dietrich, et al., EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:169–184.

16.

Shiina T, Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML, et al., WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 1: basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:1126–1147.

17.

Barr RG, Nakashima K, Amy D, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 2: breast. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:1148–1160.

18.

Stachs

Pandjaitan

Martin

et al.

Accuracy of tumor sizing in breast cancer: a comparison of strain elastography, 3-D ultrasound and conventional b-mode ultrasound with and without compound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 2758–2765.

19.

Fortune-Greeley

Wheeler

Meyer

et al.

Preoperative breast MRI and surgical outcomes in elderly women with invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 143: 203–212.

20.

Gonzalez

Sandelin

Karlsson

et al.

Preoperative MRI of the breast (POMB) influences primary treatment in breast cancer: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. World J Surg 2014; 38: 1685–1693.