Improved Breast 2D SWE Algorithm to Eliminate False-Negative Cases.
Journal
Investigative radiology
ISSN: 1536-0210
Titre abrégé: Invest Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0045377
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2023
01 10 2023
Historique:
medline:
11
9
2023
pubmed:
21
3
2023
entrez:
20
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Two-dimensional shear wave elastography (SWE) has been limited in breast lesion characterization due to false-negative results from artifacts. The aim of this study was to evaluate an updated Food and Drug Administration-approved breast 2D-SWE algorithm and compare with the standard algorithm (SA). This prospective, single-center study was approved by our local institutional review board and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. From April 25, 2019 to May 2, 2022, raw shear wave data were saved on patients having screening or diagnostic breast ultrasound on a Siemens Sequoia US. After removing duplicate images and those without biopsy diagnosis or stability over 2 years, there were 298 patients with 394 lesions with biopsy-proven pathology or >2-year follow-up. Raw data were processed using the SA and a new algorithm (NA). Five-millimeter regions of interest were placed in the highest stiffness in the lesion or adjacent 3 mm on the SA. Stiffness values (shear wave speed, max) in this location from both algorithms were recorded. Statistics were calculated for comparing the 2 algorithms. The mean patient age was 56.3 ± 16.1 years (range, 21-93 years). The mean benign lesion size was 10.7 ± 8.0 mm (range, 2-46 mm), whereas the mean malignant lesion size was 14.9 ± 7.8 mm (range, 4-36 mm). There were 201 benign (>2-year follow-up) and 193 biopsied lesions (65 benign; 128 malignant). The mean maximum stiffness for benign lesions was 2.37 m/s (SD 1.26 m/s) for SA and 3.51 m/s (SD 2.05 m/s) for NA. For malignant lesions, the mean maximum stiffness was 4.73 m/s (SD, 1.71 m/s) for SA and 8.45 m/s (SD, 1.42 m/s) for NA. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87 SA and 0.95 NA when using the optimal cutoff value. Using a threshold value of 5.0 m/s for NA and comparing to SA, the sensitivity increased from 0.45 to 1.00 and the specificity decreased from 0.94 to 0.81; the positive predictive value was 0.72, the negative predictive value was 1.00, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.00. Using a new breast SWE algorithm significantly improves the sensitivity of the technique with a small decrease in specificity, virtually eliminating the "soft" cancer artifact. The new 2D-SWE algorithm significantly increases the sensitivity and negative predictive value in characterizing breast lesions as benign or malignant and allows for downgrading all BI-RADS 4 lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36939607
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000972
pii: 00004424-990000000-00100
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
703-709Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: S.U., P.T., and A.D. have no conflicts of interest to declare. R.G.B. declares the following affiliations: Philips Ultrasound, Siemens Healthineers, Hologic Ultrasound, Mindray Ultrasound, Canon Ultrasound, Samsung Ultrasound, and Bracco Diagnostics (speakers bureau); Philips Ultrasound, Siemens Healthineers, Hologic Ultrasound, Mindray Ultrasound, Canon Ultrasound, Samsung Ultrasound, and Bracco Diagnostics (research grants); Lantheus Medical and Samsung Ultrasound Medical (advisory panels); Thieme Publishers and Elsevier Publishers (royalties). A.E. served as an employee at Siemens Healthcare. He processed the images using the new and old algorithm but had no control over selection of the ROIs or data analysis.
Références
Balleyguier C, Ciolovan L, Ammari S, et al. Breast elastography: the technical process and its applications. Diagn Interv Imaging . 2013;94:503–513.
Barr RG. Breast elastography: how to perform and integrate into a “best-practice” patient treatment algorithm. J Ultrasound Med . 2020;39:7–17.
Goddi A, Bonardi M, Alessi S. Breast elastography: a literature review. J Ultrasound . 2012;15:192–198.
Barr RG, Nakashima K, Amy D, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: part 2: breast. Ultrasound Med Biol . 2015;41:1148–1160.
Barr RG. Sonographic breast elastography: a primer. J Ultrasound Med . 2012;31:773–783.
ACR. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Repoerting and Data System (BIRADS) Ultrasound. 4th ed. 2003: Reston, VA; American College of Radiology. 2013.
Barr RG, Destounis S, Lackey LB 2nd, et al. Evaluation of breast lesions using sonographic elasticity imaging: a multicenter trial. J Ultrasound Med . 2012;31:281–287.
Barr RG, Zhang Z. Shear-wave elastography of the breast: value of a quality measure and comparison with strain elastography. Radiology . 2015;275:45–53.
Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology . 2012;262:435–449.
Cantisani V, David E, Barr RG, et al. US-elastography for breast lesion characterization: prospective comparison of US BIRADS, strain elastography and shear wave elastography. Ultraschall Med . 2021;5:533–540.
Golatta M, Pfob A, Busch C, et al. The potential of combined shear wave and strain elastography to reduce unnecessary biopsies in breast cancer diagnostics—an international, multicentre trial. Eur J Cancer . 2021;161:1–9.
Lee SH, Chang JM, Kim WH, et al. Added value of shear-wave elastography for evaluation of breast masses detected with screening US imaging. Radiology . 2014;273:61–69.
Li DD, Xu HX, Guo LH, 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;26:3290–3300.
Barr RG. Shear wave imaging of the breast: still on the learning curve. J Ultrasound Med . 2012;31:347–350.
Barr RG, Zhang Z. Effects of precompression on elasticity imaging of the breast: development of a clinically useful semiquantitative method of precompression assessment. J Ultrasound Med . 2012;31:895–902.
Tay IWM, Sim LS, Moey THL, et al. Shear wave versus strain elastography of breast lesions—the value of incorporating boundary tissue assessment. Clin Imaging . 2022;82:228–233.
Barr RG, De Silvestri A, Scotti V, et al. Diagnostic performance and accuracy of the 3 interpreting methods of breast strain Elastography: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med . 2019;38:1397–1404.
Pillai A, Voruganti T, Barr R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of shear-wave elastography for breast lesion characterization in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Radiol . 2022;19:625–34.e0.
Sousaris N, Barr RG. Sonoelastography of breast lymphoma. Ultrasound Q . 2016;32:208–211.