Evaluation of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification, a new shear wave velocity imaging method, for breast lesion assessment by ultrasound

Michael Golatta, Mirjam Schweitzer-Martin, Aba Harcos, Sarah Schott, Christina Gomez, Anne Stieber, Geraldine Rauch, Christoph Domschke, Joachim Rom, Florian Schütz, Christof Sohn, Jörg Heil, Michael Golatta, Mirjam Schweitzer-Martin, Aba Harcos, Sarah Schott, Christina Gomez, Anne Stieber, Geraldine Rauch, Christoph Domschke, Joachim Rom, Florian Schütz, Christof Sohn, Jörg Heil

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate virtual touch tissue imaging quantification (VTIQ) as a new elastography method concerning its intra- and interexaminer reliability and its ability to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions in comparison to and in combination with ultrasound (US) B-mode breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) assessment.

Materials and methods: US and VTIQ were performed by two examiners in 103 women with 104 lesions. Intra- and interexaminer reliability of VTIQ was assessed. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of BIRADS, VTIQ, and combined data were compared.

Results: Fifty-four of 104 lesions were malignant. Intraexaminer reliability was consistent, and interexaminer agreement showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.93). The mean VTIQ values in malignant lesions were significantly higher than those in benign (7.73 m/s ± 1.02 versus 4.46 m/s ± 1.87; P < 0.0001). The combination of US-BIRADS with the optimal cut-off for clinical decision making of 5.18 m/s yielded a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 82%, PPV of 86%, and NPV of 98%. The combination of BIRADS and VTIQ led to improved test validity.

Conclusion: VTIQ is highly reliable and reproducible. There is a significant difference regarding the mean maximum velocity of benign and malignant lesions. Adding VTIQ to BIRADS assessment improves the specificity.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) B-mode and VTIQ images of a 55-year-old woman show an invasive lobular carcinoma of 0.9 cm (G2). The maximum velocity of 8.40 m/s was measured in the center of the lesion. (b) B-mode and VTIQ images of a 20-year-old woman show a fibroadenoma of 1.4 cm. The maximum velocity of 2.35 m/s was measured in the center of the lesion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Range of the mean velocities measured in benign (0–8.13 m/s) and malignant lesions (3.06–8.40 m/s).
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC analysis of VTIQ alone and the combination of VTIQ and BI-RADS.

References

    1. Chen S-C, Cheung Y-C, Su C-H, Chen M-F, Hwang T-L, Hsueh S. Analysis of sonographic features for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors of different sizes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;23(2):188–193.
    1. Ohlinger R, Klein GM, Köhler G. Ultrasound of the breast: value of sonographic criteria for the differential diagnosis of solid lesions. Ultraschall in der Medizin. 2004;25(1):48–53.
    1. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213(3):889–894.
    1. 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.
    1. Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Slowinski T, Fischer T. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions. Calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Academic Radiology. 2010;17(5):558–563.
    1. Navarro B, Úbeda B, Vallespí M, Wolf C, Casas L, Browne JL. Role of elastography in the assessment of breast lesions: preliminary results. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2011;30(3):313–321.
    1. Regini E, Bagnera S, Tota D, et al. Role of sonoelastography in characterising breast nodules. Preliminary experience with 120 lesions. Radiologia Medica. 2010;115(4):551–562.
    1. Parker KJ, Lerner RM. Sonoelasticity of organs: shear waves ring a bell. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 1992;11(8):387–392.
    1. Garra BS, Cespedes EI, Ophir J, et al. Elastography of breast lesions: initial clinical results. Radiology. 1997;202(1):79–86.
    1. 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.
    1. 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 Research and Treatment. 2011;129(1):89–97.
    1. Tanter M, Bercoff J, Athanasiou A, et al. Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. 2008;34(9):1373–1386.
    1. Frey H. Realtime elastography: a new ultrasound procedure for the reconstruction of tissue elasticity. Radiologe. 2003;43(10):850–854.
    1. Sewell CW. Pathology of benign and malignant breast disorders. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 1995;33(6):1067–1080.
    1. Bai M, Du L, Gu J, Li F, Jia X. Virtual Touch tissue quantification using acoustic radiation force impulse technology: initial clinical experience with solid breast masses. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2012;31(2):289–294.
    1. Golatta M, Schweitzer-Martin M, Harcos A, et al. Normal breast tissue stiffness measured by a new ultrasound technique: virtual touch tissue imaging quantification (VTIQ) European Journal of Radiology. 2013;82(11):e676–e679.
    1. Yoon JH, Kim MH, Kim E-K, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Kim MJ. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography: how it affects the diagnosis of breast lesions. The American Journal of Roentgenology. 2011;196(3):730–736.
    1. Weismann C, Mayr C, Egger H, Auer A. Breast sonography: 2D, 3D, 4D ultrasound or elastography? Breast Care. 2011;6(2):98–103.
    1. Cosgrove DO, Berg WA, Doré CJ, et al. Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. European Radiology. 2012;22(5):1023–1032.
    1. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with greyscale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification. British Journal of Cancer. 2012;7(2):224–229.
    1. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Research. 2010;12(6, article R104)
    1. Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W, Merritt C, Rubin E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. Reston, Va, USA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
    1. Moon WK, Chang R-F, Chen C-J, Chen D-R, Chen W-L. Solid breast masses: classification with computer-aided analysis of continuous US images obtained with probe compression. Radiology. 2005;236(2):458–464.
    1. Balleyguier C, Canale S, Hassen WB, et al. Breast elasticity: principles, technique, results: an update and overview of commercially available software. European Journal of Radiology. 2013;2(3):427–434.
    1. Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M. Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control. 2004;51(4):396–409.
    1. Barr RG. Sonographic breast elastography: a primer. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2012;31(5):773–783.
    1. Barr RG, Zhang Z. Effects of precompression on elasticity imaging of the breast: development of a clinically useful semiquantitative method of precompression assessment. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2012;31(6):895–902.
    1. Barr RG. Shear wave imaging of the breast: still on the learning curve. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2012;31(3):347–350.
    1. Athanasiou A, Tardivon A, Tanter M, et al. Breast lesions: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging: preliminary results. Radiology. 2010;256(1):297–303.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться