Effect of Quantitative and Semi-quantitative Elastography Methods for the Management of Borderline Lesions on Ultrasonography

被引:1
|
作者
Aksoy, Direnc Ozlem [1 ]
Yildiz, Seyma [2 ]
Atasoy, Bahar [3 ]
Alkan, Alpay [2 ]
Kandemirli, Sedat Giray [4 ]
Cingoz, Mehmet [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Sci, Umraniye Training & Res Hosp, Dept Radiol, Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Bezmialem Vakif Univ, Dept Radiol, Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Univ Hlth Sci, Haseki Training & Res Hosp, Dept Radiol, Istanbul, Turkey
[4] Univ Iowa Hosp & Clin, Dept Radiol, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
关键词
Quantitative; semiquantitative; elastography; BI-RADS; 4a; 3; borderline breast lesions; SHEAR-WAVE ELASTOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND ELASTOGRAPHY; BREAST-LESIONS; STRAIN RATIO; CLINICAL-USE; BENIGN; DIFFERENTIATION; RECOMMENDATIONS; GUIDELINES; DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.2174/1573405616666201231102606
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Results: Except for the 13 BI-RADS 2 lesions, the remaining 180 lesions were biopsied. Pathology showed 83 lesions to be benign and 97 to be malignant. The sensitivity and specificity of the CUS were 96.9% and 75.0%, respectively with an accuracy of 86.0%. Cut-off points calculated based on ROC curves were 56.8 kPa for SWE, 3.53 for SWER and 3.81 for SER. When we downgraded BIRADS 4a lesions based on elastography results, the specificity (CUS+SER 96.9%, CUS+SWE 91.7%, and CUS+SWER 90.6%) and the accuracy (CUS+SER 95.3%, CUS+SWE 92.7%, and CUS+SWER 92.2%) were shown to be better than CUS. When we upgraded BI-RADS 3 lesions based on elastography results, the sensitivity of combined sets of SWE (99,0%) and SWER Background: Elastography (strain or shear-wave) is a method that estimates tissue stiffness. Introduction: The aim of this study is to evaluate the quantitative and semi-quantitative ultrasound elastography methods for the diagnosis of BI-RADS 4a and BI-RADS 3 lesions, which are borderline for biopsy and follow-up. Materials and Methods: 175 consecutive women with 193 ultrasound-visible breast lesions were classified on Conventional B-mode Ultrasonography (CUS) according to the BI-RADS scoring system. Quantitative and semiquantitative values from ultrasound elastography in the form of strain Elastography Ratio (SER), shear Wave Elastography (SWE) and Shear Wave Elastography Ratio (SWER) were obtained. The lesions categorized as BI-RADS 4a and BI-RADS 3 on ultrasound were subsequently re-categorized according to the elastography values. Results: Except for the 13 BI-RADS 2 lesions, the remaining 180 lesions were biopsied. Pathology showed 83 lesions to be benign and 97 to be malignant. The sensitivity and specificity of the CUS were 96.9% and 75.0%, respectively with an accuracy of 86.0%. Cut-off points calculated based on ROC curves were 56.8 kPa for SWE, 3.53 for SWER and 3.81 for SER. When we downgraded BIRADS 4a lesions based on elastography results, the specificity (CUS+SER 96.9%, CUS+SWE 91.7%, and CUS+SWER 90.6%) and the accuracy (CUS+SER 95.3%, CUS+SWE 92.7%, and CUS+SWER 92.2%) were shown to be better than CUS. When we upgraded BI-RADS 3 lesions based on elastography results, the sensitivity of combined sets of SWE (99,0%) and SWER (100,0%) was better than CUS. Conclusion: The rate of false-negative biopsies can be decreased with the combined use of elastography and ultrasonography.
引用
收藏
页码:767 / 774
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Semi-quantitative or quantitative?
    Epperson, Joe
    Louthan, Jr., McIntyre R.
    [J]. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 2005, 5 (03)
  • [2] SEMI-QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BREAST ULTRASOUND ELASTOGRAPHY IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN MALIGNANT AND BENIGN LESIONS
    Alhabshi, Sharifah Majedah Idrus
    Rahmat, Kartini
    Halim, Nurazidawati Abdul
    Aziz, Suraya
    Radhika, Sridharan
    Gan, Gek Choo
    Vijayananthan, Anushya
    Westerhout, Caroline Judy
    Mohd-Shah, Mohammad Nazri
    Jaszle, Saladina
    Latar, Nani Harlina Mohd
    Muhammad, Rohaizak
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2013, 39 (04): : 568 - 578
  • [3] SEMI-QUANTITATIVE METHODS OF ANALYSIS IN MORPHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
    KHMELNITSKY, OK
    BYKOV, VL
    [J]. ARKHIV PATOLOGII, 1980, 42 (06) : 3 - 9
  • [4] Assessment of quantitative and semi-quantitative biological test methods of artesunate in vitro
    Kouakou, Yobouet Ines
    Omorou, Roukayatou
    Bin Said, Ibrahim
    Lavoignat, Adeline
    Bonnot, Guillaume
    Bienvenu, Anne-Lise
    Picot, Stephane
    [J]. PARASITE, 2022, 29
  • [5] Quantitative and semi-quantitative methods in flood hazard/susceptibility mapping: a review
    Mudashiru R.B.
    Sabtu N.
    Abustan I.
    [J]. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2021, 14 (11)
  • [6] NON-INVASIVE SEMI-QUANTITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ULTRASONOGRAPHY FINDINGS IN KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: PRELIMINARY STUDY
    Podlipska, J.
    Koski, J. M.
    Liukkonen, E.
    Tervonen, O.
    Arokoski, J.
    Saarakkala, S.
    [J]. OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2014, 22 : S278 - S279
  • [7] DIAGNOSIS OF VASCULAR CALCIFICATIONS BY SEMI-QUANTITATIVE RADIOLOGICAL METHODS
    Diez, Guillermo Rosa
    Crucelegui, Mar-A Soledad
    Bratti, Griselda Irina
    Diehl, Maria
    Galich, Ana Maria
    [J]. ACTUALIZACIONES EN OSTEOLOGIA, 2014, 10 (01) : 82 - 84
  • [8] Evaluation of Cardiac Valvular Regurgitant Lesions by Cardiac MRI SSFP Sequences: Comparison of Semi-quantitative vs. Quantitative Methods
    Reddy, Sahadev T.
    Doyle, Mark
    Shah, Moneal
    Vido, Diane
    Williams, Ronald
    Yamrozik, June
    Biederman, Robert W.
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2012, 126 (21)
  • [9] REAL-TIME ELASTOGRAPHY IN THE ASSESSMENT OF LIVER FIBROSIS: A REVIEW OF QUALITATIVE AND SEMI-QUANTITATIVE METHODS FOR ELASTOGRAM ANALYSIS
    Paparo, Francesco
    Corradi, Francesco
    Cevasco, Luca
    Revelli, Matteo
    Marziano, Andrea
    Molini, Lucio
    Cenderello, Giovanni
    Cassola, Giovanni
    Rollandi, Gian Andrea
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2014, 40 (09): : 1923 - 1933
  • [10] Semi-quantitative comparative analysis
    Vatcheva, I
    de Jong, H
    [J]. IJCAI-99: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTEENTH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, VOLS 1 & 2, 1999, : 1034 - 1040