Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan 20:7:41216.
doi: 10.1038/srep41216.

Application of 3D and 2D quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) to differentiate between benign and malignant breast masses

Affiliations

Application of 3D and 2D quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) to differentiate between benign and malignant breast masses

Jie Tian et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

As breast cancer tissues are stiffer than normal tissues, shear wave elastography (SWE) can locally quantify tissue stiffness and provide histological information. Moreover, tissue stiffness can be observed on three-dimensional (3D) colour-coded elasticity maps. Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performances of quantitative features in differentiating breast masses by two-dimensional (2D) and 3D SWE. Two hundred ten consecutive women with 210 breast masses were examined with B-mode ultrasound (US) and SWE. Quantitative features of 3D and 2D SWE were assessed, including elastic modulus standard deviation (ESDE) measured on SWE mode images and ESDU measured on B-mode images, as well as maximum elasticity (Emax). Adding quantitative features to B-mode US improved the diagnostic performance (p < 0.05) and reduced false-positive biopsies (p < 0.0001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 3D SWE was similar to that of 2D SWE for ESDE (p = 0.026) and ESDU (p = 0.159) but inferior to that of 2D SWE for Emax (p = 0.002). Compared with ESDU, ESDE showed a higher AUC on 2D (p = 0.0038) and 3D SWE (p = 0.0057). Our study indicates that quantitative features of 3D and 2D SWE can significantly improve the diagnostic performance of B-mode US, especially 3D SWE ESDE, which shows considerable clinical value.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Invasive ductal carcinoma grade 2 in a 61-year-old woman.
The 2D B-mode image shows an irregular hypoechoic mass considered to be BI-RADS category 4b (bottom). On 2D SWE (a) and 3D SWE (b), an ROI for measuring the ESDE value was placed to include the whole breast mass and immediately adjacent stiff tissue. The other Q-Box for measuring the ESDU was placed within the mass to encompass the maximum portion of the mass and exclude tissue outside the mass. (a) Emax value recorded using the larger Q-Box. (b) Emax value recorded using a 2-mm2 Q-Box (arrow).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fibroadenoma in a 45-year-old woman.
(a) The 2D B-mode image shows a hypoechoic mass with parallel orientation considered to be BI-RADS category 4a (bottom). Both 2D SWE (a) and 3D SWE (b) show a homogeneously soft (blue colour) mass and surrounding tissue (2D Emax 47.6 kPa, ESDE 8.0 kPa, ESDU 7.7 kPa; 3D Emax 54.6 kPa, ESDE 10.8 kPa, ESDU 9.1 kPa). When combining SWE and B-mode US, BI-RADS category 3 was assigned to the mass.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fibroadenoma in a 29-year-old woman.
(a) The 2D SWE shows a homogeneously soft (blue colour) mass and surrounding tissue at the margin of the breast mass (Emax 49.7 kPa). (b) Multi-slice 3D SWE images show a heterogeneously stiff mass with scattered red colour (arrow) (Emax 155 kPa).
Figure 4
Figure 4. DCIS in a 36-year-old woman.
(a) The 2D B-mode image shows a 7.4-mm, irregular hypoechoic mass with an uncircumscribed margin considered to be BI-RADS category 4a. Both 2D SWE (b) and 3D SWE (c) show a homogeneously soft (blue colour) mass and surrounding tissue (2D Emax 58.7 kPa, ESDE 10.2 kPa, ESDU 9.4 kPa; 3D Emax 87.1 kPa, ESDE 11.8 kPa, ESDU 9.5 kPa). When combining SWE with B-mode US, BI-RADS category 3 was assigned to the mass.

References

    1. Siegel R., Naishadham D. & Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J. Clin. 63, 11–30 (2013). - PubMed
    1. Bassett L. W. Imaging of breast masses. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 38, 669–691 (2000). - PubMed
    1. Mendelson E. B. et al.. ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Breast Imaging Atlas. (American College of Radiology, 2013).
    1. Kim E. K. et al.. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 190, 1209–1215 (2008). - PubMed
    1. Berg W. A. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 42, 845–851 (2004). - PubMed

Publication types