Added value of shear-wave elastography for evaluation of breast masses detected with screening US imaging

Radiology

Volumn 273, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 61-69

  Lee, Su Hyun ^a   Chang, Jung Min ^a   Kim, Won Hwa ^a   Bae, Min Sun ^a   Seo, Mirinae ^a   Koo, Hye Ryoung ^a   Chu, A Jung ^a   Gweon, Hye Mi ^a   Cho, Nariya ^a   Moon, Woo Kyung ^a  

^a Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER GRADING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; ELASTOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; ELASTICITY IMAGING TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84908668965     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132443     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42 (5) : 845-851, vi.
2. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval-And screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92 (13) : 1081-1087.
3. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27, 825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225 (1) : 165-175.
4. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299 (18) : 2151-2163.
5. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: Benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009; 9: 335.
6. Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M. Supersonic shear imaging: A new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2004; 51 (4) : 396-409.
7. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: The BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 2012; 262 (2) : 435-449.
8. Athanasiou A, Tardivon A, Tanter M, et al. Breast lesions: Quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging-preliminary results. Radiology 2010; 256 (1) : 297-303.
9. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: Initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12 (6) : R104.
10. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, et al. Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 129 (1) : 89-97.
11. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44 (3) : 837-845.
12. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012; 265 (1) : 59-69.
13. Yi A, Cho N, Chang JM, Koo HR, La Yun B, Moon WK. Sonoelastography for 1, 786 non-palpable breast masses: Diagnostic value in the decision to biopsy. Eur Radiol 2012; 22 (5) : 1033-1040.
14. Gweon HM, Youk JH, Son EJ, Kim JA. Clinical application of qualitative assessment for breast masses in shear-wave elastography. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82 (11) : E680-e685.
15. Alhabshi SM, Rahmat K, Abdul Halim N, et al. Semi-quantitative and qualitative assessment of breast ultrasound elastography in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39 (4) : 568-578.
16. Chang JM, Park IA, Lee SH, et al. Stiffness of tumours measured by shear-wave elastography correlated with subtypes of breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2013; 23 (9) : 2450-2458.
17. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Invasive breast cancer: Relationship between shear-wave elastographic findings and histologic prognostic factors. Radiology 2012; 263 (3) : 673-677.
18. Yoon JH, Jung HK, Lee JT, Ko KH. Shearwave elastography in the diagnosis of solid breast masses: What leads to false-negative or false-positive results? Eur Radiol 2013; 23 (9) : 2432-2440.
19. Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kwak JY, Kim EK. Probably benign breast lesions on ultrasonography: A retrospective review of ultrasonographic features and clinical factors affecting the BI-RADS categorization. Acta Radiol 2010; 51 (4) : 375-382.
20. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: Consider annual follow-up. Radiology 2013; 268 (3) : 673-683.
21. Cosgrove DO, Berg WA, Doré CJ, et al. Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol 2012; 22 (5) : 1023-1032.
22. Lee SH, Cho N, Chang JM, et al. Two-view versus single-view shear-wave elastography: Comparison of observer performance in differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. Radiology 2014; 270 (2) : 344-353.