Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible
David O Cosgrove, Wendie A Berg, Caroline J Doré, Danny M Skyba, Jean-Pierre Henry, Joel Gay, Claude Cohen-Bacrie, BE1 Study Group, David O Cosgrove, Wendie A Berg, Caroline J Doré, Danny M Skyba, Jean-Pierre Henry, Joel Gay, Claude Cohen-Bacrie, BE1 Study Group
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate intra- and interobserver reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) for breast masses.
Methods: For intraobserver reproducibility, each observer obtained three consecutive SWE images of 758 masses that were visible on ultrasound. 144 (19%) were malignant. Weighted kappa was used to assess the agreement of qualitative elastographic features; the reliability of quantitative measurements was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). For the interobserver reproducibility, a blinded observer reviewed images and agreement on features was determined.
Results: Mean age was 50 years; mean mass size was 13 mm. Qualitatively, SWE images were at least reasonably similar for 666/758 (87.9%). Intraclass correlation for SWE diameter, area and perimeter was almost perfect (ICC ≥ 0.94). Intraobserver reliability for maximum and mean elasticity was almost perfect (ICC = 0.84 and 0.87) and was substantial for the ratio of mass-to-fat elasticity (ICC = 0.77). Interobserver agreement was moderate for SWE homogeneity (κ = 0.57), substantial for qualitative colour assessment of maximum elasticity (κ = 0.66), fair for SWE shape (κ = 0.40), fair for B-mode mass margins (κ = 0.38), and moderate for B-mode mass shape (κ = 0.58), orientation (κ = 0.53) and BI-RADS assessment (κ = 0.59).
Conclusions: SWE is highly reproducible for assessing elastographic features of breast masses within and across observers. SWE interpretation is at least as consistent as that of BI-RADS ultrasound B-mode features.
Key points: • Shear wave ultrasound elastography can measure the stiffness of breast tissue • It provides a qualitatively and quantitatively interpretable colour-coded map of tissue stiffness • Intraobserver reproducibility of SWE is almost perfect while intraobserver reproducibility of SWE proved to be moderate to substantial • The most reproducible SWE features between observers were SWE image homogeneity and maximum elasticity.
Figures
References
- Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:845–851. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.04.003.
- Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med (Torino) 2006;111:440–448. doi: 10.1007/s11547-006-0040-5.
- 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;180:935–940.
- Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging. 1998;20:260–274.
- Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology. 2007;245:401–410. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2452061805.
- Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239:341–350. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2391041676.
- Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Kim SJ. Breast mass evaluation: factors influencing the quality of US elastography. Radiology. 2011;259:59–64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101414.
- Athanasiou A, Tardivon A, Tanter M, et al. Breast lesions: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging–preliminary results. Radiology. 2010;256:297–303. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10090385.
- Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: ultrasound, 1st edn. American College of Radiology Reston
- Berg W, Cosgrove D, Doré C, et al (2011 accepted, pending revision) Shear wave elastography improves the specificity of breast ultrasound: the BE1 Multinational Study of 939 Masses. Radiology
- Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33:363–374. doi: 10.2307/2529786.
- Fleiss J, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. J Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1973;33:613–619. doi: 10.1177/001316447303300309.
- 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;239:385–391. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2392042127.
- Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65:293–298. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.008.
- Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology. 2009;252:665–672. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2523080670.
- Garra BS, Cespedes EI, Ophir J, et al. Elastography of breast lesions: initial clinical results. Radiology. 1997;202:79–86.
- Thomas A, Fischer T, Frey H, et al. Real-time elastography–an advanced method of ultrasound: first results in 108 patients with breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28:335–340. doi: 10.1002/uog.2823.
- Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;12:R104.
- Mendelson E, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg W, et al (2012 in press) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound, 2nd edition. American College of Radiology, Reston
Source: PubMed