Evaluating the role of strain ratio elastography in determining malignancy potential and calculating objective BIRADS US scores using ultrasonography and elastography features
More details
Hide details
Publication date: 2018-06-08
Pol J Radiol, 2018; 83: 268-274
The aims of this study were, firstly, to evaluate solid breast masses based on their malignancy potential and to determine whether the strain elastography ratio (SER) can contribute to classical grey-scale ultrasonography findings, and secondly, to define objective BIRADS US scores using ultrasound (US) and SER findings.

Material and methods:
A total of 280 patients and 297 solid breast masses were evaluated using sonographic and elastographic data. The SER was measured for each lesion.

The positive predictive values (PPV) for each criterion was calculated to be between 35% and 83.3%. The lowest PPV was obtained from hypoechogenicity (35%) and the highest PPV was obtained for anti-parallel features (83.3%). The difference between the mean SER of benign and malignant lesions was statistically significant. After ROC analysis, the SER cut-off value was calculated to be 3.1 for determining if the mass was benign or malignant. Mass scores were calculated for each solid breast mass based on positive predictive values, and BIRADS US score was defined as the sum of mass scores.

SER findings can be used as malignancy criteria in evaluating solid breast masses. BIRADS US score can be objectively determined based on US and elastography features instead of doing subjective scoring. As an additional result, all solid breast masses have the possibility to be malignant, even though US and elastography findings indicate the opposite.

Khalis M, El Rhazi K, Charaka H, et al. Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Morocco: Comparison with Other Countries. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016; 17: 6111-6116.
Harvey JA, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Palpable Breast Masses. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 1311S: 31-42.
D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al. (eds.). ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 5th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston 2013.
Mendelson EB, BohmVelez M, Berg WA, et al. ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston 2013.
Goddi A, Bonardi M, Alessi S. Breast elastography: a literature review. J Ultrasound 2012; 15: 192-198.
Zhao QL, Ruan LT, Zhang H, et al. Diagnosis of solid breast lesions by elastography 5-point score and strain ratio method. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3245-3249.
Fischer T, Peisker U, Fiedor S, et al. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: raw data-based calculation of strain ratio. Ultraschall Med 2012; 334: 372-379.
Shah VI, Raju U, Chitale D, et al. False-negative core needle biopsies of the breast: an analysis of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings in 27 concecutive cases of missed breast cancer. Cancer 2003; 97: 1824-1831.
Liberman L, Ernberg LA, Heerdt A, et al. Palpable breast masses: is there a role for percutaneous imaging-guided core biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 774-787.
Ward ST, Shepherd JA, Khalil H. Freehand versus ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the breast: reducing the burden of repeat biopsies in patients presenting to the breast clinic. Breast 2010; 19: 105-108.
Pijnappel RM, van Dalen A, Borel Rinkes IH, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy in palpable and non-palpable breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 1997; 24: 120-123.
Yeow KM, Lo YF, Wang CS, et al. Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy as an initial diagnostic test for palpable breast masses. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001; 12: 1313-1317.
Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH. Comparison of automated versus vacuum assisted methods for sonography guided core biopsy of breast. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 347-351.
Brenner RJ, Fajardo L, Fisher PR, et al. Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 341-346.
Morrow M. The evaluation of common breast problems. Am Fam Physician 2000; 61: 2371-2378.
Klein S. Evaluation of palpable breast masses. Am Fam Physician 2005; 71: 1731-1738.
Pruthi S. Detection and evaluation of a palpable breast mass. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 641-647.
Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196: 123-134.
Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, et al. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25: 649-659.
Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, et al. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1260-1265.
Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, et al. Automated Ultrasound of the Breast for Diagnosis: Interobserver Agreement on Lesion Detection and Characterization. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 747-754.
Yi A, Cho N, Chang JM, et al. Sonoelastography for 1,786 non-palpable breast masses: diagnostic value in the decision to biopsy. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1033-1040.
Yoon JH, Ko KH, Jung HK, et al. Qualitative pattern classification of shear wave elastography for breast masses: how it correlates to quantitative measurements. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 2199-2204.
Botticelli A, Mazzotti E, Di Stefano D, et al. A positive impact of elastography in breast cancer diagnosis: an institutional experience. J Ultrasound 2015; 18: 321-327.
Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, et al. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999; 211: 845-850.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top