Combination of conventional ultrasonography and virtual touch tissue imaging quantification for differential diagnosis of breast lesions smaller than 10 mm
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October 12, 2017
Combination of conventional ultrasonography and virtual touch tissue imaging quantification for differential diagnosis of breast lesions smaller than 10 mm
To determine the value of combining conventional ultrasonography with virtual touch tissue imaging quantification (VTIQ) for differential diagnosis of breast lesions smaller than 10 mm.
METHODS:
A total of 98 breast lesions smaller than 10 mm were examined by conventional ultrasound and VTIQ using a Siemens ACUSON S3000 ultrasound machine. Pathologic diagnosis was established after surgery or fine needle biopsy.
RESULTS:
Malignant lesions were characterized by taller-than-wide shape, poorly circumscribed margin, and marked hypoechogenicity. The mean VTIQ shear wave velocity (SWV) value of malignant lesions was 4.88±1.87 m/s (range, 1.75–9.34 m/s), significantly higher than that of benign lesions (2.68±1.02 m/s; range, 1.18–4.67 m/s). The optimal cutoff SWV value was 3.27 m/s, with sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 86.20%, 95.65%, 92.86%, 89.29%, and 94.29%, respectively. The combination of SWV >3.27 m/s plus the US feature of poorly circumscribed margin had the highest sensitivity (93.33%) and specificity (100%) for diagnosis of malignant breast lesions.
CONCLUSION:
Features such as taller-than-wide shape, poorly circumscribed margin, and marked hypoechogenicity on conventional US, and SWV >3.27 m/s on VTIQ, are indicators of malignancy in breast lesions with diameter <10 mm. The combination of poorly circumscribed margin and SWV >3.27 m/s provides the highest specificity and diagnostic accuracy.
MoheyN. and HassanT.A., Value of mammography and combined grey scale ultrasound and ultrasound elastography in the differentiation of solid breast lesions, Egyptian J Radiol NuclearMed45 (2014), 253–261.
2.
SiegelR., NaishadhamD. and JemalA., Cancer statistics, CA Cancer J Clin63 (2013), 11–30.
3.
StavrosA.T., ThickmanD., RappC.L., DennisM.A., ParkerS.H. and SisneyG.A., Solid breast nodules: Use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions, Radiology196 (1995), 123–134.
4.
BergW.A., Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts, Radiol Clin North Am42 (2004), 845–851.
5.
CorsettiV., FerrariA., GhirardiM., et al., Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts, Radiol Med111 (2006), 440–448.
6.
HoussamiN., IrwigL., SimpsonJ.M., McKessarM., BlomeS. and NoakesJ., Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: Comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms, AJR Am J Roentgenol180 (2003), 935–940.
7.
AthanasiouA., TardivonA., TanterM., et al., Breast lesions: Quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging-preliminary results, Radiology256 (2010), 297–303.
8.
OphirJ., CespedesI., PonnekantiH., et al., Elastography: A quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues, Ultrason Imaging13 (1991), 111–134.
9.
FischerT., PeiskerU., FiedorS., et al., Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: Raw data-based calculation of strain ratio, Ultraschall in der Medizin33 (2012), 372–379.
10.
TozakiM., SaitoM., JooC., et al., Ultrasonographic elastography of the breast using acoustic radiation force impulse technology: Preliminary study, Jpn J Radiol29 (2011), 452–456.
11.
TozakiM., IsobeS. and FukumaE., Preliminary study of ultrasonographic tissue quantification of the breast using the acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) technology, Eur J Radiol80 (2011), 182–187.
12.
MarconJ., TrottmannM., RübenthalerJ., StiefC.G., ReiserM.F. and ClevertD.A., Shear wave elastography of the testes in a healthy study collective - Differences in standard values between ARFI and VTIQ techniques, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc64(4) (2016), 721–728.
13.
RenW.W., LiX.L., HeY.P., et al., Two-dimensional shear wave elastography of breast lesions: Comparison of two different systems, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc66(1) (2017), 37–46.
14.
MarconJ., TrottmannM., RübenthalerJ., et al., Shear wave elastography of the testes in a healthy study collective - Differences in standard values between ARFI and VTIQ techniques, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc64(4) (2016), 721–728.
15.
WeismannC., MayrC., EggerH., et al., Breast sonography-2D, 3D, 4D ultrasound or elastography?Breast Care (Basel, Switzerland)6 (2011), 98–103.
16.
BarrR.G., Sonographic breast elastography: A primer, J Ultrasound Med31 (2012), 773–783.
17.
BarrR.G. and ZhangZ., Effects of precompression on elasticity imaging of the breast: Development of a clinically useful semiquantitative method of precompression assessment, J Ultrasound Med31 (2012), 895–902.
18.
FoxB.L., Surviving triple negative breast cancer: Hope, treatment, and recovery, Library Journal137 (2012), 121–124.
19.
KubistaE., Breast cancer: Figures and facts, Wien Med Wochenschr151 (2001), 548–551.
20.
ThomasA., DegenhardtF., FarrokhA., et al., Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: Calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography, Acad Radiol17 (2010), 558–563.
21.
NavarroB., UbedaB., VallespiM., et al., Role of elastography in the assessment of breast lesions: Preliminary results, J Ultrasound Med30 (2011), 313–321.
22.
ReginiE., BagneraS., TotaD., et al., Role of sonoelastography in characterising breast nodules.: Preliminary experience with 120 lesions, Radiol Med115 (2010), 551–562.
23.
ParkerK.J. and LernerR.M., Sonoelasticity of organs: Shear waves ring a bell, J Ultrasound Med11 (1992), 387–392.
24.
GarraB.S., CespedesE.I., OphirJ., et al., Elastography of breast lesions: Initial clinical results, Radiology202 (1997), 79–86.
25.
ZhiH., OuB., XiaoX.Y., et al., Ultrasound elastography of breast lesions in chinese women: A multicenter study in China, Clin Breast Cancer13 (2013), 392–400.
26.
CosgroveD.O., BergW.A., DoreC.J., et al., Shear wave elastography for breast lesions is highly reproducible, Eur Radiol22 (2012), 1023–1032.
27.
EvansA., WhelehanP., ThomsonK., et al., Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast lesions: Value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with greyscale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification, Br J Cancer107 (2012), 224–229.
28.
GolattaM., Schweitzer-MartinM., HarcosA., et al., Evaluation ofvirtual touch tissue imaging quantification, a new shear wavevelocity imaging method, for breast lesion assessment byultrasound, Biomed Res Int2014 (2014), 960262.
29.
TozakiM., SaitoM., BensonJ., et al., Shear wave velocity measurements for differential diagnosis of solid breast lesions: A comparison between virtual touch quantification and virtual touch IQ, Ultrasound Med Biol39 (2013), 2233–2245.
30.
ChenY.P., HanT., WuR., et al., Comparison of Virtual Touch Tissue Quantification and Virtual Touch Tissue Imaging Quantification for diagnosis of solid breast tumors of different sizes, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc64(2) (2016), 235–244.
31.
YoonJ.H., KimM.J., KimE.K., et al., Discordant elastography images of breast lesions: How various factors lead to discordant findings, Ultraschall Med34 (2013), 266–271.
32.
YaoM., WuJ., ZouL., et al., Diagnostic value of virtual touch tissue quantification for breast lesions with different size, Biomed Res Int2014 (2014), 142504.
33.
ZhangY.F., XuH.X., HeY., et al., Virtual touch tissuequantification of acoustic radiation force impulse: A newultrasound elastic imaging in the diagnosis of thyroid nodules, Plos One11 (2012), 49094.
34.
GuJ.Y., DuL.F., BaiM., et al., Preliminary study on the diagnostic value of acoustic radiation force impulse technology for differentiating between benign and malignant thyroid nodules, J Ultrasound Med31 (2012), 763–771.
35.
YaoM.H., WuR., XuG., et al., A novel two-dimensional quantitative shear wave elastography to make differential diagnosis of breast lesions: Comprehensive evaluation and influencing factors, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc64(2) (2016), 223–233.
