Harmonic motion imaging of human breast masses: an in vivo clinical feasibility

Niloufar Saharkhiz, Richard Ha, Bret Taback, Xiaoyue Judy Li, Rachel Weber, Alireza Nabavizadeh, Stephen A Lee, Hanina Hibshoosh, Vittorio Gatti, Hermes A S Kamimura, Elisa E Konofagou, Niloufar Saharkhiz, Richard Ha, Bret Taback, Xiaoyue Judy Li, Rachel Weber, Alireza Nabavizadeh, Stephen A Lee, Hanina Hibshoosh, Vittorio Gatti, Hermes A S Kamimura, Elisa E Konofagou

Abstract

Non-invasive diagnosis of breast cancer is still challenging due to the low specificity of the imaging modalities that calls for unnecessary biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy can be improved by assessing the breast tissue mechanical properties associated with pathological changes. Harmonic motion imaging (HMI) is an elasticity imaging technique that uses acoustic radiation force to evaluate the localized mechanical properties of the underlying tissue. Herein, we studied the in vivo feasibility of a clinical HMI system to differentiate breast tumors based on their relative HMI displacements, in human subjects. We performed HMI scans in 10 female subjects with breast masses: five benign and five malignant masses. Results revealed that both benign and malignant masses were stiffer than the surrounding tissues. However, malignant tumors underwent lower mean HMI displacement (1.1 ± 0.5 µm) compared to benign tumors (3.6 ± 1.5 µm) and the adjacent non-cancerous tissue (6.4 ± 2.5 µm), which allowed to differentiate between tumor types. Additionally, the excised breast specimens of the same patients (n = 5) were imaged post-surgically, where there was an excellent agreement between the in vivo and ex vivo findings, confirmed with histology. Higher displacement contrast between cancerous and non-cancerous tissue was found ex vivo, potentially due to the lower nonlinearity in the elastic properties of ex vivo tissue. This preliminary study lays the foundation for the potential complementary application of HMI in clinical practice in conjunction with the B-mode to classify suspicious breast masses.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Clinical B-mode image of a patient with a 0.9-cm invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). (b) B-mode image of the mass acquired with the HMI imaging transducer (2.5 MHz). (c) HMI displacement map overlaid on the B-mode image (tumor contour is shown with white-dashed lines). (df) H&E staining of the mass. The red arrows show invasive carcinoma, the yellow arrows show fibrous normal breast tissue, and the blue arrow shows mature adipose tissue.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Clinical B-mode image of a hypoechoic 1.4 cm solid breast mass. (b) B-mode image of the mass acquired with the HMI imaging transducer (2.5 MHz). (c) HMI displacement map overlaid on the B-mode image (tumor contour is shown with white-dashed lines). (df) H&E staining of the mass diagnosed as fibrotic stroma with adenosis. The yellow arrows show adenosis, and the blue arrow shows fibrous normal breast tissue and mature adipose tissue.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) US image of a 2.2-cm microlobulated solid hypoechoic invasive ductal carcinoma. (bc) HMI B-mode image and displacement map of the in vivo tumor acquired before surgery (tumor contour is shown with white-dashed lines). (de) HMI B-mode image and displacement map of the tumor lumpectomy specimen scanned immediately after surgery. The contrast difference between the ex vivo displacement map and the corresponding in vivo map shown in (c) might be due to the change in the boundary conditions and lack of physical constraints in the ex vivo specimen. (fg) HMI B-mode image and displacement map of the specimen at an imaging plane distant from the tumor. (hj) H&E-stained sections. The red arrows show invasive carcinoma, the yellow arrows show fibrous normal breast tissue, and the blue arrow shows mature adipose tissue.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) A 4-cm invasive ductal carcinoma US image acquired using a clinical scanner (bc) B-mode image and overlaid HMI displacement map of the in vivo tumor respectively before surgical resection (tumor contour is shown with white-dashed lines). (de) B-mode image and overlaid HMI displacement map of the ex vivo tumor respectively after surgical resection. (fh) H&E-stained sections. The red arrows show invasive carcinoma, the yellow arrows show fibrous normal breast tissue, and the blue arrow shows mature adipose tissue.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Harmonic motion imaging (HMI) displacement estimated in (a) non-cancerous tissue and tumor in five patients with malignant lesions, (b) surrounding tissue and tumor in five patients with benign lesions, (c) malignant (n = 5) and benign (n = 5) tumors in vivo, (d) non-cancerous tissue and tumor in patients with malignant (n = 4) and benign (n = 1) masses, in vivo and ex vivo. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Estimated HMI displacement in different size tumors. No correlation was found between the displacement and tumor size (Pearson r = −0.1588, P = 0.66).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Schematic of the clinical harmonic motion imaging (HMI) setup. (a) Positioning of the patient and HMI transducers. (b) Block diagram of HMI data acquisition.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Flowchart of HMI data acquisition, processing, motion correction, and attenuation correction. (a) HMI transducers were moved mechanically in a 1-D point-by-point raster scan regimen. (b) RF data were acquired at each point. (c) RF data were processed offline according to the processing pipeline. (d) Large-scale motion artifacts were corrected by applying 2-D cross-correlation on the RF data in the lateral and axial directions (e) HMI displacement values were co-registered based on the motion artifact correction. A 2-D displacement map was reconstructed accordingly. (f, g) Displacement values along the axial direction (red dashed line) were fitted into two exponential curves to correct for acoustic force attenuation above and below the FUS transducer focus. The blue and red lines show the displacement values along the axial direction before and after attenuation correction, respectively. (h) Overlaid HMI displacement map on the B-mode image before attenuation correction. (i) Overlaid HMI displacement map on the B-mode image after attenuation correction.

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2019;69:7–34. doi: 10.3322/caac.21551.
    1. Etzioni R, et al. The case for early detection. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2003;3:243–252. doi: 10.1038/nrc1041.
    1. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349–355.
    1. Tabár L, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the breast cancer screening working group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet (London, England) 1985;1:829–832. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92204-4.
    1. 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;225:165–175. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2251011667.
    1. Boyd NF, et al. Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;356:227–236. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062790.
    1. Pisano ED, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;353:1773–1783. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911.
    1. Saslow D, et al. American cancer society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2007;57:75–89. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75.
    1. Lehman CD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244:381–388. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2442060461.
    1. Monticciolo DL, et al. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2018;15:408–414. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034.
    1. Stavros AT, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196:123–134. doi: 10.1148/radiology.196.1.7784555.
    1. Rahbar G, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213:889–894. doi: 10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc20889.
    1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US–diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology. 1998;207:191–199. doi: 10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530316.
    1. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer. 1995;76:626–630. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19950815)76:4<626::AID-CNCR2820760413>;2-Z.
    1. Berg WA, Gilbreath PL. Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology. 2000;214:59–66. doi: 10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja2559.
    1. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001;221:641–649. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2213010364.
    1. Brem RF, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman J, Torrente J. Screening Breast ultrasound: past, present, and future. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015;204:234–240. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.12072.
    1. Berg WA, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2008;299:2151–2163. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.
    1. Berg WA, et al. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2016;108:djv367. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv367.
    1. Kaplan SS. Automated whole breast ultrasound. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2014;52:539–546. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2014.01.002.
    1. Zanotel M, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications. Radiol. Med. 2018;123:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11547-017-0805-z.
    1. Samani A, Zubovits J, Plewes D. Elastic moduli of normal and pathological human breast tissues: an inversion-technique-based investigation of 169 samples. Phys. Med. Biol. 2007;52:1565–1576. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/6/002.
    1. Sarvazyan AP, et al. Biophysical bases of elasticity imaging. Springer, Boston. 1995 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-1943-0_23.
    1. Sewell CW. Pathology of benign and malignant breast disorders. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 1995;33:1067–1080.
    1. Sandrin L, et al. Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasoun. Med. Biol. 2003;29:1705–1713. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.07.001.
    1. Ophir J, Céspedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y. Elastography: A quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason. Imaging. 1991;13:111–134. doi: 10.1177/016173469101300201.
    1. Doherty JR, Trahey GE, Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML. Acoustic radiation force elasticity imaging in diagnostic ultrasound. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 2013;60:685–701. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2013.2617.
    1. Itoh A, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239:341–350. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2391041676.
    1. Sarvazyan AP, Rudenko OV, Swanson SD, Fowlkes JB, Emelianov SY. Shear wave elasticity imaging: A new ultrasonic technology of medical diagnostics. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1998;24:1419–1435. doi: 10.1016/S0301-5629(98)00110-0.
    1. Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML, Nightingale RW, Trahey GE. On the feasibility of remote palpation using acoustic radiation force. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001;110:625–634. doi: 10.1121/1.1378344.
    1. Sharma AC, Soo MS, Trahey GE, Nightingale KR. Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging of in vivo breast masses. IEEE Ultrason. Symp. 2004;1:728–731.
    1. Nightingale K, McAleavey S, Trahey G. Shear-wave generation using acoustic radiation force: in vivo and ex vivo results. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2003;29:1715–1723. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.08.008.
    1. Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M. Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 2004;51:396–409. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2004.1295425.
    1. Song P, et al. Comb-push ultrasound shear elastography (CUSE): A novel method for two-dimensional shear elasticity imaging of soft tissues. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 2012;31:1821–1832. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2012.2205586.
    1. Yoon JH, Jung HK, Lee JT, Ko KH. Shear-wave elastography in the diagnosis of solid breast masses: What leads to false-negative or false-positive results? Eur. Radiol. 2013;23:2432–2440. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2854-6.
    1. Toprak N, Yokus A, Gündüz M, Akdenız H. Histopathology and elastography discordance in evaluation of breast lesions with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography. Polish J. Radiol. 2019;84:224–233. doi: 10.5114/pjr.2019.86852.
    1. Fatemi M, Greenleaf JF. Ultrasound-stimulated vibro-acoustic spectrography. Science. 1998;280:82–85. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5360.82.
    1. Fatemi M, Greenleaf JF. Vibro-acoustography: An imaging modality based on ultrasound-stimulated acoustic emission. PNAS. 1999;96:6603. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.12.6603.
    1. Kamimura HAS, et al. Vibroacoustography for the assessment of total hip arthroplasty. Clinics. 2013;68:463–468. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2013(04)05.
    1. Kamimura HAS, Urban MW, Carneiro AAO, Fatemi M, Alizad A. Vibro-acoustography beam formation with reconfigurable arrays. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 2012;59:1421–1431. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2012.2343.
    1. Konofagou EE, Hynynen K. Localized harmonic motion imaging: theory, simulations and experiments. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2003;29:1405–1413. doi: 10.1016/S0301-5629(03)00953-0.
    1. Baggio AL, Kamimura HAS, Henrique Lopes J, Carneiro AAO, Silva GT. Parametric array signal in confocal vibro-acoustography. Appl. Acoust. 2017;126:143–148. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.05.022.
    1. Maleke C, Pernot M, Konofagou EE. Single-element focused ultrasound transducer method for harmonic motion imaging. Ultrason. Imaging. 2006;28:144–158. doi: 10.1177/016173460602800302.
    1. Payen T, et al. Harmonic motion imaging of pancreatic tumor stiffness indicates disease state and treatment response. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020;26:1297–1308. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3669.
    1. Han, Y., Wang, S., Payen, T. & Konofagou, E. Human breast tumor characterization on post-surgical mastectomy specimens using harmonic motion imaging (HMI). in IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium, IUS (IEEE Computer Society, 2017). 10.1109/ULTSYM.2017.8091551
    1. Chen H, et al. Harmonic motion imaging for abdominal tumor detection and high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation monitoring: An in vivo feasibility study in a transgenic mouse model of pancreatic cancer. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 2015;62:1662–1673. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2015.007113.
    1. Vappou J, et al. Non-contact, ultrasound-based indentation method for measuring elastic properties of biological tissues using Harmonic Motion Imaging (HMI) Phys. Med. Biol. 2015;60:2853–2868. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/7/2853.
    1. Han Y, Wang S, Hibshoosh H, Taback B, Konofagou E. Tumor characterization and treatment monitoring of postsurgical human breast specimens using harmonic motion imaging (HMI) Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:46. doi: 10.1186/s13058-016-0707-3.
    1. Han Y. Development of a Harmonic Motion Imaging guided Focused Ultrasound system for breast tumor characterization and treatment monitoring. 2018 doi: 10.7916/D8KS83H7.
    1. Han Y, Wang S, Payen T, Konofagou E. Fast lesion mapping during HIFU treatment using harmonic motion imaging guided focused ultrasound (HMIgFUS) in vitro and in vivo. Phys. Med. Biol. 2017;62:3111–3123. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa6024.
    1. Nakashima K, Moriya T. Comprehensive ultrasound diagnosis for intraductal spread of primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2013;20:3–12. doi: 10.1007/s12282-011-0326-x.
    1. Denis M, et al. Comb-push ultrasound shear elastography of breast masses: initial results show promise. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0119398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119398.
    1. Shiina T, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: part 1: basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2015;41:1126–1147. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.03.009.
    1. Chen EJ, Adler RS, Carson PL, Jenkins WK, O’Brien WD. Ultrasound tissue displacement imaging with application to breast cancer. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1995;21:1153–1162. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(95)02005-5.
    1. Earl, H. Donegan WL, Spratt JS: Cancer of the breast 5th Edition. London, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2002. 1050pp. Breast Cancer Res.6, 88 (2004).
    1. Elseedawy M, Whelehan P, Vinnicombe S, Thomson K, Evans A. Factors influencing the stiffness of fibroadenomas at shear wave elastography. Clin. Radiol. 2016;71:92–95. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.10.029.
    1. Samani A, Plewes D. A method to measure the hyperelastic parameters of ex vivo breast tissue samples. Phys. Med. Biol. 2004;49:4395–4405. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/18/014.
    1. Nabavizadeh A, et al. Technical note: In vivo Young’s modulus mapping of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma during HIFU ablation using harmonic motion elastography (HME) Med. Phys. 2018;45:5244–5250. doi: 10.1002/mp.13170.
    1. Nabavizadeh A, et al. Noninvasive Young’s modulus visualization of fibrosis progression and delineation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tumors using Harmonic Motion Elastography (HME) in vivo. Theranostics. 2020;10:4614–4626. doi: 10.7150/thno.37965.
    1. Han Y, Payen T, Wang S, Konofagou E. Focused ultrasound steering for harmonic motion imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 2018;65:292–294. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2781188.
    1. Stavros AT, Rapp CL, Parker SH. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
    1. Barr RG, Zhang Z. Effects of Precompression on Elasticity Imaging of the Breast. J. Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:895–902. doi: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.6.895.
    1. Wade OL. Movements of the thoracic cage and diaphragm in respiration. J. Physiol. 1954;124:193–212. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1954.sp005099.
    1. Saharkhiz, N., Han, Y., Nabavizadeh, A., Ha, R. & Konofagou, E. A harmonic motion imaging (HMI) clinical system for detection and characterization of in vivo human breast masses - initial feasibility. In 2018 IEEE international ultrasonics symposium (IUS), Kobe, pp. 1–9. 10.1109/ULTSYM.2018.8579993 (2018).
    1. Jianwen Luo J, Konofagou EE. A fast normalized cross-correlation calculation method for motion estimation. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 2010;57:1347–1357. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2010.1554.
    1. Nightingale K, Palmeri M, Trahey G. Analysis of contrast in images generated with transient acoustic radiation force. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2006;32:61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.08.008.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться