Two-dimensional (2D) - shear wave elastography (SWE) has made promising advances in the diagnostic of breast lesions. However, few studies have assessed whether the diagnostic effectiveness of different platforms employing 2D-SWE is equal or different.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the diagnostic effectiveness of 2D-SWE techniques from two different systems in differentiating malignant breast lesions from benign ones.
METHODS:
A total of 84 breast lesions were retrospectively analyzed by experienced radiologists using 2D-SWE on two ultrasound systems, i.e. system-1 (LOGIQ E9 system, GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI, USA), and system-2 (Aixplorer US system, SuperSonic Imagine, Aix-en-Provence, France). Qualitative and quantitative parameters including color sign, the maximum elasticity modulus values (E-max), the mean elasticity modulus values (E-mean) and standard deviation (E-sd) of elasticity modulus values in two 2D-SWE systems were analyzed. The diagnostic performance between system-1 and system-2 were evaluated in terms of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs).
RESULTS:
Among the 84 lesions in this study, 66 (78.6%) were benign and 18 (21.4%) were malignant. E-max in system-1 showed the best diagnostic performance with a cut-off value of 174.5 kPa with the associated sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% and 80.3% respectively. Meanwhile, E-sd in system-2 displayed the best diagnostic performance with a cut-off value of 12.7 kPa, with the associated sensitivity and specificity of 94.4% and 80.3% respectively. The diagnostic performance of the two 2D-SWE systems was not statistically different according to receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis of E-max, E-mean, and E-sd.
CONCLUSION:
For identifying breast lesions, system-1 and system-2 appear to be similar in diagnostic performance. However, different cut-off values for different parameters might be selected to obtain the best diagnostic performance for the two 2D-SWE systems.
BarrRG. Sonographic breast elastography: A primer. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(5):773–783.
2.
ShiinaT, NightingaleKR, PalmeriML, HallTJ, BamberJC, BarrRG, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 1: Basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41(5):1126–1147.
3.
GeorgievaM, PrantlL, UtpatelK, WiesingerI, StroszczynskiC, JungF, et al. Diagnostic performance of ultrasound strain elastography for differentiation of malignant breast lesions. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;71(2):237–247.
4.
LiuY, HuangY, HanJ, WangJ, LiF, ZhouJ. Association between shear wave elastography of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification parameters and the ki-67 proliferation status in luminal-type breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(1):73–80.
5.
ZhangS, WanJ, LiuH, YaoM, XiangL, FangY, et al. Value of conventional ultrasound, ultrasound elasticity imaging, and acoustic radiation force impulse elastography for prediction of malignancy in breast lesions. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020;74(3):241–253.
6.
ZhongLC, YangT, GuLP, MaF. The diagnostic performance of shear wave velocity ratio for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions: Compared with VTQ, and mammography. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2021;77(2):123–131.
7.
BarrRG, DestounisS, LackeyLB, 2nd, SvenssonWE, BalleyguierC, SmithC. Evaluation of breast lesions using sonographic elasticity imaging: A multicenter trial. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(2):281–287.
8.
DestounisS, ArienoA, MorganR, MurphyP, SeifertP, SomervilleP, et al. Clinical experience with elasticity imaging in a community-based breast center. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(2):297–302.
9.
BergWA, CosgroveDO, DoreCJ, SchaferFK, SvenssonWE, HooleyRJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: The BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology. 2012;262(2):435–449.
10.
LiuB, ZhengY, HuangG, LinM, ShanQ, LuY, et al. Breast lesions: Quantitative diagnosis using ultrasound shear wave elastography-a systematic review and meta–analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(4):835–847.
11.
YeoSH, KimGR, LeeSH, MoonWK. Comparison of ultrasound elastography and color doppler ultrasonography for distinguishing small triple-negative breast cancer from fibroadenoma. J Ultrasound Med. 2018;37(9):2135–2146.
12.
PuH, ZhaoLX, YaoMH, XuG, LiuH, XuHX, et al. Conventional US combined with acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography for prediction of triple-negative breast cancer and the risk of lymphatic metastasis. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;65(4):335–347.
13.
GrajoJR, BarrRG. Strain elastography for prediction of breast cancer tumor grades. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(1):129–134.
14.
ZhuYC, ZhangY, DengSH, JiangQ, WangDS. Correlation between histopathological grading and shear-wave elastography in evaluating invasive carcinoma of no special type. Exp Ther Med. 2018;16(6):4700–4706.
15.
WangD, ZhuK, TianJ, LiZ, DuG, GuoQ, et al. Clinicopathological and ultrasonic features of triple-negative breast cancers: A comparison with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast cancers. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(5):1124–1132.
16.
MaY, ZhangS, LiJ, LiJ, KangY, RenW. Comparison of strain and shear-wave ultrasounic elastography in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(6):2282–2291.
17.
EvansA, WhelehanP, ThompsonA, PurdieC, JordanL, MacaskillJ, et al. Prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer comparing interim ultrasound, shear wave elastography and MRI. Ultraschall Med. 2018;39(4):422–431.
18.
AthanasiouA, TardivonA, TanterM, Sigal-ZafraniB, BercoffJ, DeffieuxT, et al. Breast lesions: Quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging–preliminary results. Radiology. 2010;256(1):297–303.
19.
CosgroveDO, BergWA, DoreCJ, SkybaDM, HenryJP, GayJ, et al. Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(5):1023–1032.
20.
OphirJ, CespedesI, PonnekantiH, YazdiY, LiX. Elastography: A quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging. 1991;13(2):111–134.
21.
SigristRMS, LiauJ, KaffasAE, ChammasMC, WillmannJK. Ultrasound elastography: Review of techniques and clinical applications. Theranostics. 2017;7(5):1303–1329.
22.
ChenL, HeJ, LiuG, ShaoK, ZhouM, LiB, et al. Diagnostic performances of shear-wave elastography for identification of malignant breast lesions: A meta-analysis. Jpn J Radiol. 2014;32(10):592–599.
23.
KimHJ, KimSM, KimB, La YunB, JangM, KoY, et al. Comparison of strain and shear wave elastography for qualitative and quantitative assessment of breast masses in the same population. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):6197.
24.
RenWW, LiXL, HeYP, LiDD, WangD, ZhaoCK, et al. Two-dimensional shear wave elastography of breast lesions: Comparison of two different systems. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;66(1):37–46.
25.
ZhouJ, ZhanW, ChangC, ZhangX, JiaY, DongY, et al. Breast lesions: Evaluation with shear wave elastography, with special emphasis on the “stiff rim” sign. Radiology. 2014;272(1):63–72.
26.
BarrRG, NakashimaK, AmyD, CosgroveD, FarrokhA, SchaferF, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 2: Breast. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41(5):1148–1160.
27.
XiaoY, ZengJ, NiuL, ZengQ, WuT, WangC, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis based on quantitative elastographic features with supersonic shear wave imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40(2):275–286.
28.
HooleyRJ, ScouttLM, PhilpottsLE. Breast ultrasonography: State of the art. Radiology. 2013;268(3):642–659.
29.
EvansA, WhelehanP, ThomsonK, McLeanD, BrauerK, PurdieC, et al. Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: Initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(6):R104.
30.
ZhouBG, WangD, RenWW, LiXL, HeYP, LiuBJ, et al. Value of shear wave arrival time contour display in shear wave elastography for breast masses diagnosis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):7036.
31.
LeeEJ, JungHK, KoKH, LeeJT, YoonJH. Diagnostic performances of shear wave elastography: Which parameter to use in differential diagnosis of solid breast masses?Eur Radiol. 2013;23(7):1803–1811.
32.
GweonHM, YoukJH, SonEJ, KimJA. Visually assessed colour overlay features in shear-wave elastography for breast masses: Quantification and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(3):658–663.
33.
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):583–590.
34.
DongF, WuH, ZhangL, TianH, LiangW, YeX, et al. Diagnostic performance of multimodal sound touch elastography for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(8):2181–2190.
35.
ShiXQ, LiJ, QianL, XueX, LiJ, WanW. Correlation between elastic parameters and collagen fibre features in breast lesions. Clin Radiol. 2018;73(6):595 e1–e7.
36.
SongP, ZhaoH, ManducaA, UrbanMW, GreenleafJF, ChenS. Comb-push ultrasound shear elastography (CUSE): A novel method for two-dimensional shear elasticity imaging of soft tissues. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012;31(9):1821–1832.
37.
YoonJH, JungHK, LeeJT, KoKH. Shear-wave elastography in the diagnosis of solid breast masses: What leads to false-negative or false-positive results?Eur Radiol. 2013;23(9):2432–2440.
DuYR, WuY, ChenM, GuXG. Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of small breast lesions. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;70(3):291–300.
40.
XiangLH, YaoMH, XuG, PuH, LiuH, FangY, et al. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and shear-wave elastography for breast lesions of sub-centimeter. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;67(1)69–80.
