Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-05-28
Three-dimensional shear wave elastography for differentiation of breast lesions: An initial study with quantitative analysis using three orthogonal planes
To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) shear wave elastography (SWE) for breast lesions with quantitative stiffness information from transverse, sagittal and coronal planes.
METHODS:
Conventional ultrasound (US), two-dimensional (2D)-SWE and 3D-SWE were performed for 122 consecutive patients with 122 breast lesions before biopsy or surgical excision. Maximum elasticity values of Young’s modulus (Emax) were recorded on 2D-SWE and three planes of 3D-SWE. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of US, 2D-SWE and 3D-SWE were evaluated. Two combined sets (i.e., BI-RADS and 2D-SWE; BI-RADS and 3D-SWE) were compared in AUC. Observer consistency was also evaluated.
RESULTS:
On 3D-SWE, the AUC and sensitivity of sagittal plane were significantly higher than those of transverse and coronal planes (both P < 0.05). Compared with BI-RADS alone, both combined sets had significantly (P < 0.05) higher AUCs and specificities, whereas, the two combined sets showed no significant difference in AUC (P > 0.05). However, the combined set of BI-RADS and sagittal plane of 3D-SWE had significantly higher sensitivity than the combined set of BI-RADS and 2D-SWE.
CONCLUSIONS:
The sagittal plane shows the best diagnostic performance among 3D-SWE. The combination of BI-RADS and 3D-SWE is a useful tool for predicting breast malignant lesions in comparison with BI-RADS alone.
TorreLA, BrayF, SiegelRL, FerlayJ, Lortet-TieulentJ, JemalA. Global cancer statistics, 2012, CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.
2.
SicklesEA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: Results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179(2):463–8.
3.
SpragueBL, LehmanCD, TostesonAN. Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):802–3.
4.
JoeBN, SicklesEA. The evolution of breast imaging: Past to present. Radiology. 2014;273(2 Suppl):S23–44.
5.
CorsettiV, FerrariA, GhirardiM, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med. 2006;111(3):440–8.
6.
ChenSC, CheungYC, SuCH, ChenMF, HwangTL, HsuehS. Analysis of sonographic features for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors of different sizes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23(2):188–93.
7.
OhlingerR, KleinGM, KöhlerG. Ultrasound of the breast - value of sonographic criteria for the differential diagnosis of solid lesions. Ultraschall Med. 2004;25(1):48–53.
8.
RahbarG, SieAC, HansenGC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213(3):889–4.
9.
LiN, JiangYX, ZhuQL, et al. Accuracy of an automated breast volume ultrasound system for assessment of the pre-operative extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: Comparison with a conventional handheld ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(12):2255–63.
10.
OphirJ, CéspedesI, PonnekantiH, YazdiY, LiX. Elastography: A quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging. 1991;13(2):111–34.
11.
LeeSH, ChangJM, KimWH, et al. Added value of shear-wave elastography for evaluation of breast masses detected with screening US imaging. Radiology. 2014;273(1):61–9.
12.
GongX, XuQ, XuZ, XiongP, YanW, ChenY. Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: A meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130(1):11–8.
13.
CosgroveD, PiscagliaF, BamberJ, BojungaJ, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part Clinical applications. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34(3):238–53.
14.
SadighG, CarlosRC, NealCH, DwamenaBA. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: A meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):23–35.
15.
XuJM, XuXH, XuHX, et al. Conventional US, US elasticity imaging, and acoustic radiation force impulse imaging for prediction of malignancy in thyroid nodules. Radiology. 2014;272(2):577–86.
16.
JiangJ, ChenYQ, XuYZ, et al. Correlation between three-dimensional ultrasound features and pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(6):1186–96.
17.
EvansA, WhelehanP, ThomsonK, et al. Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: Initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(6):R104.
18.
LiDD, XuHX, GuoLH, 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 Radiol. 2016;26(9):3290–300.
19.
LiXL, XuHX, BoXW, et al. Value of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification for evaluation of ultrasound breast imaging-reporting and data system category 4 lesion. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(9):2050–2057.
20.
DowneyDB, FensterA, WilliamsJC. Clinical utility of three-dimensional US. Radiographics. 2000;20(2):559–71.
ChoN, MoonWK, ChaJH, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US. Radiology. 2006;240(1):26–32.
24.
ChenYL, ChangC, ZengW, WangF, ChenJJ, QuN. 3-Dimensional shear wave elastography of breast lesions: Added value of color patterns with emphasis on crater sign of coronal plane. Medicine. 2016;95(39):e4877.
25.
Medicine AIOUI. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of a breast ultrasound examination. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(1):105–9.
26.
American College of Radiology. American college of radiology (ACR) breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston VA: ACR. 2013.
27.
BergWA, CosgroveDO, DoréCJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: The BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology. 2012;262(2):435–49.
28.
WangZL, LiJL, LiM, HuangY, WanWB, TangJ. Study of quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging in the diagnosis of breast tumours. Radiol Med. 2013;118(4):583–90.
29.
DeLongER, DeLongDM, Clarke-PearsonDL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.
30.
BarrRGSonographic breast elastography: A primer. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(5):773–83.
31.
CongR, LiJ, WangX. Comparing performance of combinations of shear wave elastography and B-Mode ultrasound in diagnosing breast masses: Is it influenced by mass size? Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017;43(10):2133–43.
32.
YoukJH, GweonHM, SonEJ, ChungJ, KimJA, KimEK. Three-dimensional shear-wave elastography for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions: Comparison with two-dimensional shear-wave elastography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1519–27.
33.
LeeSH, ChangJM, KimWH, et al. Differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses: Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional shear-wave elastography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1015–26.
34.
ChoiHY, SohnYM, SeoM. Comparison of 3D and 2D shear-wave elastography for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses: Focus on the diagnostic performance. Clin Radiol. 2017;72(10):878–86.
35.
JiangJ, ChenYQ, XuYZ, et al. Correlation between three-dimensional ultrasound features and pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(6):1186–96.
36.
VinnicombeSJ, WhelehanP, ThomsonK, et al. What are the characteristics of breast cancers misclassified as benign by quantitative ultrasound shear wave elastography. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(4):921–6.
