The current value of quantitative shear wave sonoelastography in parotid gland tumors.
Ultrasound (US)
acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI)
parotid gland (PG)
salivary gland tumors
sonoelastography
Journal
Gland surgery
ISSN: 2227-684X
Titre abrégé: Gland Surg
Pays: China (Republic : 1949- )
ID NLM: 101606638
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
entrez:
10
5
2021
pubmed:
11
5
2021
medline:
11
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The preoperative differentiation between salivary gland tumor entities using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) is still limited. Biopsies are often regarded as indispensable for properly characterizing these various lesions. The aim of this study was to analyze the value of acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) sonoelastography as an US differentiation tool when examining parotid gland (PG) lesions. We included 104 patients with PG masses in this study, employing two different US devices using quantitative ARFI-sonoelastography (Siemens Acuson-S3000, n=59; Siemens Acuson-Sequoia, n=45). The ability of sonoelastographic measurements to differentiate between different neoplasms was compared and analyzed for both US machines. Quantitative shear wave sonoelastography is limited in its ability to reliably differentiate between tumor entities of the PG as a stand-alone parameter. Measurement results were unsystematically distributed and not transferable between the two US devices. A significant differentiation of benign and malignant lesions was not possible with either US machine (S3000: P=0.770, Sequoia: P=0.382). A differentiation between pleomorphic adenomas (PA) and Warthin tumors was only possible with the Acuson S3000 system (P=0.001, Spearman-Rho =0.492, sensitivity 73.9%, specificity 65.0%). A reliable identification and differentiation of PG tumors as well as clinical treatment decisions cannot be made with the sole use of ARFI-sonoelastography. The results emphasize the device-dependence and high error-proneness of this US technique when examining lesions of the PG.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The preoperative differentiation between salivary gland tumor entities using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) is still limited. Biopsies are often regarded as indispensable for properly characterizing these various lesions. The aim of this study was to analyze the value of acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) sonoelastography as an US differentiation tool when examining parotid gland (PG) lesions.
METHODS
METHODS
We included 104 patients with PG masses in this study, employing two different US devices using quantitative ARFI-sonoelastography (Siemens Acuson-S3000, n=59; Siemens Acuson-Sequoia, n=45). The ability of sonoelastographic measurements to differentiate between different neoplasms was compared and analyzed for both US machines.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Quantitative shear wave sonoelastography is limited in its ability to reliably differentiate between tumor entities of the PG as a stand-alone parameter. Measurement results were unsystematically distributed and not transferable between the two US devices. A significant differentiation of benign and malignant lesions was not possible with either US machine (S3000: P=0.770, Sequoia: P=0.382). A differentiation between pleomorphic adenomas (PA) and Warthin tumors was only possible with the Acuson S3000 system (P=0.001, Spearman-Rho =0.492, sensitivity 73.9%, specificity 65.0%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A reliable identification and differentiation of PG tumors as well as clinical treatment decisions cannot be made with the sole use of ARFI-sonoelastography. The results emphasize the device-dependence and high error-proneness of this US technique when examining lesions of the PG.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33968689
doi: 10.21037/gs-20-837
pii: gs-10-04-1374
pmc: PMC8102225
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1374-1386Informations de copyright
2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/gs-20-837). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2018 May;28(2):303-317
pubmed: 29622121
Eur Radiol. 2019 Feb;29(2):725-735
pubmed: 29992386
Ultraschall Med. 2017 Apr;38(2):166-173
pubmed: 26274381
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Dec;46(12):2227-2233
pubmed: 30528989
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Oct;137(4):642-6
pubmed: 17903584
Head Neck Surg. 1986 Jan-Feb;8(3):177-84
pubmed: 3744850
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 Jan;36(1):77-87
pubmed: 27925646
Eur Radiol. 2012 May;22(5):966-9
pubmed: 22367472
Eur Radiol. 2012 May;22(5):957-65
pubmed: 22200901
Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015 Apr;42(2):128-33
pubmed: 25262550
Laryngorhinootologie. 2019 Oct;98(10):701-707
pubmed: 31378851
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:9234672
pubmed: 29057270
Eur Radiol. 2012 May;22(5):947-56
pubmed: 22270139
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2019 Aug;70(3):264-272
pubmed: 30922790
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Jun;120(6):834-40
pubmed: 10352436
J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Mar;33(3):503-8
pubmed: 24567462
Ultraschall Med. 2016 Oct;37(5):454-471
pubmed: 27300273
Med Ultrason. 2017 Jan 31;19(1):32-38
pubmed: 28180194
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Nov;275(11):2609-2613
pubmed: 30238310
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 17;13(9):e0204095
pubmed: 30222755
J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Jul;38(7):1677-1683
pubmed: 30426518
Jpn J Radiol. 2019 Sep;37(9):627-635
pubmed: 31352657
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Nov;197(5):W924-30
pubmed: 22021543
HNO. 1976 Dec;24(12):415-26
pubmed: 1002574
Ultrasound Q. 2018 Jun;34(2):62-66
pubmed: 29634668
Ultraschall Med. 2019 Aug;40(4):495-503
pubmed: 31137050
Ultrasonography. 2020 Jan;39(1):3-10
pubmed: 31645092
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(6):20160100
pubmed: 27351345
Eur Radiol. 2019 Dec;29(12):6477-6488
pubmed: 31278577
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019 Sep;128(3):280-310
pubmed: 31029591
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2018 May;28(2):171-182
pubmed: 29622112
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Sep;41(9):2310-8
pubmed: 26022793
Int J Prev Med. 2016 Mar 09;7:55
pubmed: 27076893
Insights Imaging. 2016 Oct;7(5):735-46
pubmed: 27553006
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Mar;30(3):591-6
pubmed: 19131405
Ultraschall Med. 2012 Jun;33(3):283-8
pubmed: 22504938
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019 Oct;128(4):431-443.e1
pubmed: 31327623
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018 Oct;47(7):20180068
pubmed: 29745753
Head Neck Pathol. 2017 Mar;11(1):55-67
pubmed: 28247227
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;70(4):457-466
pubmed: 30347609
Med Image Anal. 2011 Aug;15(4):589-600
pubmed: 21530361
Eur Radiol. 1998;8(8):1462-7
pubmed: 9853238
Br J Cancer. 2012 Jul 10;107(2):224-9
pubmed: 22691969