Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: The BE1 multinational study of 939 masses

Radiology

Volumn 262, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 435-449

  Berg, Wendie A ^a   Cosgrove, David O ^b   Doré, Caroline J ^c   Schäfer, Fritz K W ^d   Svensson, William E ^e   Hooley, Regina J ^f   Ohlinger, Ralf ^g   Mendelson, Ellen B ^h   Balu Maestro, Catherine ⁱ   Locatelli, Martina ^j   Tourasse, Christophe ^k   Cavanaugh, Barbara C ^l   Juhan, Valérie ^m   Stavros, A Thomas ^n,q   Tardivon, Anne ^o   Gay, Joel ^p   Henry, Jean Pierre ^p   Cohen Bacrie, Claude ^p  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c MRC CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN   (Germany)

^e CHARING CROSS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g University Hospital   (Germany)

^h NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ CENTRE ANTOINE LACASSAGNE   (France)

^j Ospedale Civile   (Italy)

^k Private Hospital Jean Mermoz   (France)

^l THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^m TIMONE HOSPITAL   (France)

ⁿ INVISION SALLY JOBE   (United States)

^o INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^p SUPERSONIC IMAGINE   (France)

^q Sutter Medical Center   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; ELASTOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; REFERENCE VALUE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ELASTICITY IMAGING TECHNIQUES; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INTERNATIONALITY; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHEAR STRENGTH; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857410377     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110640     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bassett LW. Imaging of breast masses. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38(4):669-691.
2. Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001;219(1):186-191.
3. Georgian-Smith D, Taylor KJ, Madjar H, et al. Sonography of palpable breast cancer. J Clin Ultrasound 2000;28(5):211-216.
4. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(4):935-940.
5. Kaiser JS, Helvie MA, Blacklaw RL, Roubidoux MA. Palpable breast thickening: role of mammography and US in cancer detection . Radiology 2002;223(3):839-844.
6. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 2002;225(1):176-181.
7. Hild F, Duda VF, Albert U, Schulz KD. Ductal orientated sonography improves the diagnosis of pathological nipple discharge of the female breast compared with galactography. Eur J Cancer Prev 1998;7(suppl 1): S57-S62.
8. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi- institutional study. Radiology 1994;193(2):359-364.
9. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, et al. US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 1993;187(2):507-511.
10. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: ultrasound. Reston, Va : American College of Radiology, 2003.
11. ACRIN 6666: Screening breast ultrasound in high-risk women. American College of Radiology Imaging Network, in conjunction with the Avon Foundation. http://acrin.org/Portals /0/Protocols/6666/Protocol-ACRIN%20 6666%20Admin%20Update%2011.30.07.pdf. Published April 19, 2004. Accessed March 8, 2011.
12. 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(1):123-134.
13. Mendelson EB, Berg WA, Merritt CR. Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. Semin Roentgenol 2001;36(3):217-225.
14. Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994;192(2):439-442.
15. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):691-695.
16. Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Shortterm follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001;219(2):475-483.
17. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 2007;244(1):87-93.
18. Kim EK, Ko KH, Oh KK, et al. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(5):1209-1215.
19. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: mammography. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
20. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239(2):385-391.
21. Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging 1998;20(4):260-274.
22. Cosgrove D, Berg WA, Doré CJ, Gay J, Henry JP, Cohen-Bacrie C. Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. doi: doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011- 2340-y. Eur Radiol (in press).
23. Cuzick JA. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985;4(1):87-90.
24. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977;33(2):363-374.
25. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcifi ed solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004;233(3):850-856.
26. Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Lorusso AP, Cohen MA, Bovbjerg VE. Short-term follow-up of palpable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(6):1723-1730.
27. Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, Zhang Z. Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):931-987.
28. Berg WA, Campassi CI, Ioffe OB. Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 2003;227(1):183-191.
29. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(4):921-927.
30. Chang YW, Kwon KH, Goo DE, Choi DL, Lee HK, Yang SB. Sonographic differentiation of benign and malignant cystic lesions of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(1):47-53.
31. Daly CP, Bailey JE, Klein KA, Helvie MA. Complicated breast cysts on sonography: is aspiration necessary to exclude malignancy? Acad Radiol 2008;15(5):610-617.
32. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US - diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207(1): 191-199.
33. Venta LA, Kim JP, Pelloski CE, Morrow M. Management of complex breast cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(5):1331-1336.
34. Garra BS. Imaging and estimation of tissue elasticity by ultrasound. Ultrasound Q 2007;23(4):255-268.
35. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Kim SJ. Breast mass evaluation: factors influencing the quality of US elastography. Radiology 2011;259(1):59-64.