To evaluate the efficacy of added shear wave elastography (SWE) in breast screening for women with results inconsistent between mammography and conventional ultrasounds (US).
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The study consisted of 282 pathologically proven breast lesions. The cancer probability from screening by mammography and conventional US were scored using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Elastography was used to re-evaluate inconsistent conventional US and mammography results. The diagnostic performance of conventional US, mammography, and Combined conventional clinical imaging and SWE was compared. The clinicopathological features of all breast cancer patients with inconsistent (and consistent) conventional US and mammography findings were compared.
RESULT:
Finally, 147 lesions were confirmed benign and 135 were malignant. The AUC of Combined conventional clinical imaging plus elastography imaging (0.870) was significantly higher than mammography (0.735, p < 0.001) or conventional US (0.717, p < 0.001) alone. Among the 135 breast cancers, 79 of the conventional US and mammography findings were consistent and 56 were inconsistent. Younger age(<50y) (p = 0.035), non-invasive (p = 0.037), smaller size (p = 0.002) and negative lymph node status (p = 0.026) were significantly associated with inconsistent findings.
CONCLUSION:
The added SWE in breast screening when inconsistent results from mammography and conventional US occurred is necessary and effective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JemalA, SiegelR, XuJ, et al. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.
2.
CiattoS, VisioliC, PaciE, et al. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:393–6.
3.
MandelsonMT, OestreicherN, PorterPL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1081–7.
4.
van GilsCH, OttenJD, VerbeekAL, et al. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: A study in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:267–71.
5.
LeconteI, FegerC, GalantC, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: The importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1675–9.
6.
CrystalP, StranoSD, ShcharynskiS, et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177–82.
7.
BaeMS, MoonWK, ChangJM, et al. Breast cancer detected with screening US: Reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology. 2014;270:369–77.
8.
HooleyRJ, GreenbergKL, StackhouseRM, et al. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265:59–69.
9.
BergWA, ZhangZ, LehrerD, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307:1394–404.
10.
IrwigL, HoussamiN, van VlietC, New technologies in screening for breast cancer: A systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:2118–22.
11.
LiXL, XuHX, BoXW, et al. Value of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification for evaluation of ultrasound breast imaging-reporting and data system category 4 lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42:2050–7.
12.
NelsonHD, O’MearaES, KerlikowskeK, et al. Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: An analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:226–35.
13.
SongSE, ChoN, ChuA, et al. Undiagnosed breast cancer: Features at supplemental screening US. Radiology. 2015;277:372–80.
14.
CorsettiV, HoussamiN, FerrariA, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:539–44.
15.
SandersLM, DaigleM, The rightful role of MRI after negative conventional imaging in the management of bloody nipple discharge. Breast J. 2016;22:209–12.
16.
RicciP, MagginiE, MancusoE, et al. Clinical application of breast elastography: State of the art. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:429–37.
17.
KuhlCK, SchradingS, LeutnerCC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8469–76.
18.
OrelSG, SchnallMD, MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology. 2001;220:13–30.
19.
BergWA, CosgroveDO, DoréCJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: The BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology. 2012;262:435–49.
20.
LiXL, RenWW, FuHJ, HeYP, WangQ, SunLP, GuoLH, LiuBJ, FangL, XuHX, Shear wave speed imaging of breast lesions: Speed within the lesion, fat-to-lesion speed ratio, or gland-to-lesion speed ratio?Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;67(1):81–90.
21.
RenWW, LiXL, HeYP, LiDD, WangD, ZhaoCK, BoXW, LiuBJ, YueWW, XuHX, Two-dimensional shear wave elastography of breast lesions: Comparison of two different systems. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;66(1):37–46.
22.
BarrRG, NakashimaK, AmyD, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part Breast. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:1148–60.
23.
CosgroveDO, BergWA, DoréCJ, et al. Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1023–32.
24.
LeeSH, ChangJM, KimWH, et al. Added value of shear-wave elastography for evaluation of breast masses detected with screening US imaging. Radiology. 2014;273:61–9.
25.
YoukJH, SonEJ, ParkAY, et al. Shear-wave elastography for breast masses: Local shear wave speed (m/sec) versus Young modulus (kPa). Ultrasonography. 2014;33:34–9.
26.
LeeS, JungY, BaeY, Clinical application of a color map pattern on shear-wave elastography for invasive breast cancer. Surg Oncol. 2016;25:44–8.
27.
HoffmanFA, RheinsteinPH, HounF, The mammography quality standards act of 1992. Am Fam Physician. 1994;49:1965–70.
28.
AIUM practice guideline for the performance of a breast ultrasound examinationJ Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:105–9.
29.
ZhouJ, ZhanW, ChangC, et al. Breast lesions: Evaluation with shear wave elastography, with special emphasis on the “stiff rim” sign. Radiology. 2014;272:63–72.
30.
GweonHM, YoukJH, SonEJ, et al. Visually assessed colour overlay features in shear-wave elastography for breast masses: Quantification and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:658–63.
ElstonCW, EllisIO, Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: Experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 2002;41:154–61.
33.
WeigertJ, SteenbergenS, The connecticut experiment: The role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2012;18:517–22.
34.
LehmanCD, LeeCI, LovingVA, et al. Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:1169–77.
35.
KuhlCK, StrobelK, BielingH, et al. Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2017;283:361–70.
36.
TaylorK, O’KeeffeS, BrittonPD, et al. Ultrasound elastography as an adjuvant to conventional ultrasound in the preoperative assessment of axillary lymph nodes in suspected breast cancer: A pilot study. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:1064–71.
37.
ZhaiL, PalmeriML, BouchardRR, et al. An integrated indenter-ARFI imaging system for tissue stiffness quantification. Ultrason Imaging. 2008;30:95–111.
38.
ParkMK, JoJ, KwonH, et al. Usefulness of acoustic radiation force impulse elastography in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant solid pancreatic lesions. Ultrasonography. 2014;33:26–33.
39.
NothackerM, DudaV, HahnM, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: Benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:335.
40.
DeyS, SolimanAS, Cancer in the global health era: Opportunities for the Middle East and Asia. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2010;22:75S–82S.
41.
GartlehnerG, ThalerK, ChapmanA, et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus Mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD009632.
