Comparative analysis of the quantitative parameter method and elasticity color mode method for real-time shear wave elastography in the diagnosis of benign and malignant solid breast lesions
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2022
Comparative analysis of the quantitative parameter method and elasticity color mode method for real-time shear wave elastography in the diagnosis of benign and malignant solid breast lesions
To examine the performance of real-time shear wave elastography (RT-SWE) in routine clinical practice.
Methods:
This was a prospective study of 500 patients. The elasticity color mode method was judged by a four-mode system. The quantitative parameter method was used to measure the modulus of elasticity of the lesions. Pathologic reports were used as a gold standard to comparatively analyze the diagnostic performance of the two methods.
Results:
A total of 553 tumors were detected. The average mode value and the modulus of elasticity (Emax) of the benign breast masses was lower than that of malignant masses (p < 0.05). With Emax = 67.4 as the diagnostic threshold value, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of the two methods were not statistically significant different (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
The shear wave quantitative parameter method and the elasticity color mode method showed similar performances in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses. The elasticity color mode method is convenient and intuitive, whereas the quantitative parameter method can be used to objectively assess the lesions when it is difficult to score the elasticity of an image, but could not be relied on alone.
HuangYLiFHanJ, et al. Shear wave elastography of breast lesions: quantitative analysis of elastic heterogeneity improves diagnostic performance. Ultrasound Med Biol2019; 45: 1909–1917.
2.
Chamming’sFMesurolleBAntonescuR, et al. Value of shear wave elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant microcalcifications of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol2019; 213: W85–W92.
3.
LiuGZhangMKHeY, et al. BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: could multi-mode ultrasound be helpful for their diagnosis?Gland Surg2019; 8: 258–270.
4.
ShinYJKimSMYunB, et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ in ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. J Ultrasound Med2019; 38: 481–488.
5.
FengHLiJLHuangY, et al. Quantitative study on the elastic modulus of real-time shear wave for small mammary nodules. Chinese J Ultrasound Med2013; 29: 782–786.
6.
TozakiMFukumaE.Pattern classification of Shear Wave™ elastography images for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant solid breast masses. Acta Radiol2011; 52: 1069–1075.
7.
BergWACosgroveDODoréCJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology2012; 262: 435–449.
8.
LuoJCaoYNianW, et al. Benefit of shear-wave elastography in the differential diagnosis of breast lesion: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Med Ultrason2018; 1: 43–49.
9.
HariSPaulSBVidyasagarR, et al. Breast mass characterization using shear wave elastography and ultrasound. Diagn Interv Imaging2018; 99: 699–707.
10.
FujiokaTMoriMKubotaK, et al. Simultaneous comparison between strain and shear wave elastography of breast masses for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions by qualitative and quantitative assessments. Breast Cancer2019; 26: 792–798.
11.
ShangJRuanLTWangYY, et al. Utilizing size-based thresholds of stiffness gradient to reclassify BI-RADS category 3-4b lesions increases diagnostic performance. Clin Radiol2019; 74: 306–313.
12.
GürüfAÖztürkMBayrakİK, et al. Shear wave versus strain elastography in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Turk J Med Sci2019; 49: 1509–1517.
13.
YuanCGWeiJ.The value of SWE combined with BI-RADS grading in the differential diagnosis of breast masses and the relationship with pathological features. He Bei Medicine2018; 24: 366–370.
14.
CengQJCengJWuT, et al. Color image scoring system of shear wave elastography in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant solid breast masses. Chin J Med Imaging Technol2015; 31: 405–408.
15.
SuvannarergVChitchumnongPApiwatW, et al. Diagnostic performance of qualitative and quantitative shear wave elastography in differentiating malignant from benign breast masses, and association with the histological prognostic factors. Quant Imaging Med Surg2019; 9: 386–398.
16.
LinXChangCWuC, et al. Confirmed value of shear wave elastography for ultrasound characterization of breast masses using a conservative approach in Chinese women: a large-size prospective multicenter trial. Cancer Manag Res2018; 10: 4447–4458.
17.
WangYQTangLNLiuNX, et al. Application value of real-time shear wave elastography in distinguish of molecular subtypes in breast invasive ductal carcinoma. Chin J Oncol Prev Treat2018; 10: 390–392.
18.
DengMJChenLZhongN, et al. Comparison on the diagnostic efficiency of RI and elastic modulus in breast BI-RADS classification. Hainan Med2018; 29: 2568–2570.
19.
ShiXQLiJLWanWB, et al. A set of shear wave elastography quantitative parameters combined with ultrasound BI-RADS to assess benign and malignant breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol2015; 41: 960–966.
20.
BouchardRRHsuSJPalmeriML, et al. Acoustic radiation force driven assessment of myocardial elasticity using the (DRR) method. Ultrasound Med Biol2011; 37: 1087–1100.
21.
HanJLiAHHanF, et al. Study on the methodology of shear wave elastography in the evaluation of breast lesions. Chin J Ultrasound Med2016; 32: 503–506.
22.
ParkHSShinHJShinKC, et al. Comparison of peritumoral stromal tissue stiffness obtained by shear wave elastography between benign and malignant breast lesions. Acta Radiol2018; 59: 1168–1175.
23.
XiangLMaFYaoM, et al. Benign lesion evaluation: factors causing the “stiff rim” sign in breast tissues using shear-wave elastography. Br J Radiol2019; 92: 20180602.
24.
GweonHMYoukJHSonEJ, et al. Visually assessed colour overlay features in shear-wave elastography for breast masses: quantification and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol2013; 23: 658–663.
25.
BernalMChamming'sFCouadeM, et al. In vivo quantification of the nonlinear shear modulus in breast lesions: feasibility study. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control2016; 63: 101–109.
26.
ZhouYYueQXLiuJ.The value of ultrasound BI-RADS combined with elastic strain rate ratio in the diagnosis of breast masses. Health Med Res Pract2016; 13: 77–79.
27.
BarrRGNakashimaKAmyD, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: part 2: breast. Ultrasound Med Biol2015; 41: 1148–1160.
28.
CengQJCengJZhengRQ, et al. The value of shear wave elastography in differential diagnosis of breast solid lesions. Chin J Ultrasound Imaging2014; 23: 129–132.
29.
NgWLRahmatKFadzliF, et al. Shear wave elastography increases diagnostic accuracy in characterization of breast lesions. Medicine2016; 95: e3146.
30.
LiDDXuHXGuoLH, et al. Combination of two-dimensional shear wave elastography with ultrasound breast imaging reporting and data system in the diagnosis of breast lesions: a new method to increase the diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol2016; 26: 3290–3300.
31.
BaeJSChangJMLeeSH, et al. Prediction of invasive breast cancer using shear-wave elastography in patients with biopsy-confirmed ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur Radiol2017; 27: 7–15.
