Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지

Nonpalpable Breast Masses: Evaluation by US Elastography

Cho, Nariya;Moon, Woo-Kyung;Park, Jeong-Seon;Cha, Joo-Hee;Jang, Mijung;Seong, Min-Hyun

  • Published : 20080000
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performances of conventional ultrasound (US) and US elastography for the differentiation of nonpalpable breast masses, and to evaluate whether elastography is helpful at reducing the number of benign biopsies, using histological analysis as a reference standard. Materials and Methods: Conventional US and real-time elastographic images were obtained for 100 women who had been scheduled for a US-guided core biopsy of 100 nonpalpable breast masses (83 benign, 17 malignant). Two experienced radiologists unaware of the biopsy and clinical findings analyzed conventional US and elastographic images by consensus, and classified lesions based on degree of suspicion regarding the probability of malignancy. Results were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. In addition, the authors investigated whether a subset of lesions was categorized as suspicious by conventional US, but as benign by elastography. Results: Areas under the ROC curves (Az values) were 0.901 for conventional US and 0.916 for elastography (p = 0.808). For BI-RADS category 4a lesions, 44% (22 of 50) had an elasticity score of 1 and all were found to be benign. Conclusion: Elastography was found to have a diagnostic performance comparable to that of conventional US for the differentiation of nonpalpable breast masses. The authors conclude that BI-RADS category 4a lesions with an elasticity score of 1 probably do not require biopsy.

Keywords

References

  1. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123-134 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.196.1.7784555
  2. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889-894 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc20889
  3. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Kim DB, Lee YR, Kim MJ, et al. Pure and mixed tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic differential features. Korean J Radiol 2007;8:103-110 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2007.8.2.103
  4. Park SY, Oh KK, Kim EK, Son EJ, Chung WH. Sonographic findings of breast hamartoma: emphasis on compressibility. Yonsei Med J 2003;44:847-854 https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2003.44.5.847
  5. Steinberg BD, Sullivan DC, Carlson DL. Disparity mapping applied to sonography of the breast: technical note. Radiology 1998;207:545-550 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.207.2.9577508
  6. Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging 1998;20:260-274 https://doi.org/10.1177/016173469802000403
  7. Wilson LS, Robinson DE. Ultrasonic measurement of small displacements and deformations of tissue. Ultrason Imaging 1982;4:71-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/0161-7346(82)90006-2
  8. Lerner RM, Huang SR, Parker KJ. Sonoelasticity images derived from ultrasound signals in mechanically vibrated tissues. Ultrasound Med Biol 1990;16:231-239 https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-5629(90)90002-T
  9. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 1991;13:111-134 https://doi.org/10.1016/0161-7346(91)90079-W
  10. Garra BS, Cespedes EI, Ophir J, Spratt SR, Zuurbier RA, Magnant CM, et al. Elastography of breast lesions: initial clinical results. Radiology 1997;202:79-86 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.202.1.8988195
  11. Hall TJ, Zhu Y, Spalding CS. In vivo real-time freehand palpation imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29:427-435 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(02)00733-0
  12. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006;239:341-350 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391041676
  13. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system $(BI-RADS^{TM})$ ultrasound. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003
  14. Hall TJ. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in US: beyond the basics: elasticity imaging with US. Radiographics 2003;23:1657-1671 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.236035163
  15. Insana MF, Pellot-Barakat C, Sridhar M, Lindfors KK. Viscoelastic imaging of breast tumor microenvironment with ultrasound. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2004;9:393-404 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10911-004-1409-5