Ultrasonography.  2014 Jan;33(1):3-10.

Practice guideline for the performance of breast ultrasound elastography

• Lee SH
• Chang JM
• Cho N
• Koo HR
• Yi A
• Kim SJ
• Youk JH
• Son EJ
• Choi SH
• Kook SH
• Chung J
• Cha ES
• Park JS
• Jung HK
• Ko KH
• Choi HY
• Ryu EB
• Moon WK
• Korean Breast Elastography Study Group

Abstract

Ultrasound (US) elastography is a valuable imaging technique for tissue characterization. Two main types of elastography, strain and shear-wave, are commonly used to image breast tissue. The use of elastography is expected to increase, particularly with the increased use of US for breast screening. Recently, the US elastographic features of breast masses have been incorporated into the 2nd edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) US lexicon as associated findings. This review suggests practical guidelines for breast US elastography in consensus with the Korean Breast Elastography Study Group, which was formed in August 2013 to perform a multicenter prospective study on the use of elastography for US breast screening. This article is focused on the role of elastography in combination with B-mode US for the evaluation of breast masses. Practical tips for adequate data acquisition and the interpretation of elastography results are also presented.

Keyword

Breast, neoplasms; Ultrasonography; Elasticity imaging techniques

MeSH Terms

Breast*
Consensus
Elasticity Imaging Techniques*
Information Systems
Mass Screening
Ultrasonography*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Strain elastographic images of breast masses. A. Five-point scale elasticity scores (Tsukuba score) with increasing probability of malignancy. A score of 1 indicates even strain throughout the entire hypoechoic lesion; a score of 2 indicates strain in most of the hypoechoic lesion with some areas of no strain; a score of 3 indicates strain at the periphery of the hypoechoic lesion with sparing of the center of the lesion; a score of 4 indicates no strain throughout the entire hypoechoic lesion; and a score of 5 indicates no strain throughout the entire hypoechoic lesion or in the surrounding area. B. An aliasing artifact that appears as a blue-green-red (BGR) pattern can be seen in a simple cyst. Note that a color code of red indicates soft, and blue is hard.

• 

  Fig. 2. Shear-wave elastographic images of breast masses. A. The ranges of maximum elasticity value according to the maximum elasticity color of breast masses are shown using a default color scale that ranges from 0 to +180 kPa. The maximum elasticity colors on shear-wave elastography (SWE) can be classified into three categories: dark blue and light blue indicating soft elasticity, green and orange indicating intermediate elasticity, and red indicating hard elasticity. B. A signal-void area (arrow) appears in a simple cyst.

• 

  Fig. 3. A flowchart showing the combination of B-mode and elastographic results for the evaluation of breast masses. Positive or negative elastographic results acquired on either strain elastography (SE) or shearwave elastography (SWE) can change the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category of breast masses. For the breast masses that present equivocal elastographic results, the B-mode ultrasound findings should be considered preferentially. E(+), positive result on SE or SWE; E(-), negative result on SE or SWE.

• 

  Fig. 4. Representative good and poor quality elastographic images. A. Good quality images on SE can be defined by a high signal-to-noise ratio in the region of interest. B. Poor quality images were acquired due to probe slipping (left) and a deeply located lesion or thick breast (right) on strain elastography. C. Good quality images with the typical appearance of a benign (left) and malignant mass (right) on shear-wave elastography (SWE). D. A benign mass can exhibit increased stiffness when the SWE image was acquired using compression (left). Artifacts can appear on SWE images (right) in the skin and chest wall (arrows).

Reference

References

1. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006; 239:341–350.

2. Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Cha JH, Jang M, Seong MH. Nonpalpable breast masses: evaluation by US elastography. Korean J Radiol. 2008; 9:111–118.

3. Cho N, Jang M, Lyou CY, Park JS, Choi HY, Moon WK. Distinguishing benign from malignant masses at breast US: combined US elastography and color doppler US--influence on radiologist accuracy. Radiology. 2012; 262:80–90.

4. Yi A, Cho N, Chang JM, Koo HR, La Yun B, Moon WK. Sonoelastography for 1,786 non-palpable breast masses: diagnostic value in the decision to biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22:1033–1040.

5. Harvey J. Breast US: What's new in BI-RADS 2012? In: The 44th Annual Congress of Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine. In : In: The 44th Annual Congress of Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine; 2013 May 25; Seoul, Korea. Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2013. p.138.

6. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, McLean D, Brauer K, Purdie C, et al. Invasive breast cancer: relationship between shear-wave elastographic findings and histologic prognostic factors. Radiology. 2012; 263:673–677.

7. Chang JM, Park IA, Lee SH, Kim WH, Bae MS, Koo HR, et al. Stiffness of tumours measured by shear-wave elastography correlated with subtypes of breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:2450–2458.

8. Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ, Kim JA, Jeong J. Shear-wave elastography of invasive breast cancer: correlation between quantitative mean elasticity value and immunohistochemical profile. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 138:119–126.

9. Kim MY, Cho N, Yi A, Koo HR, Yun BL, Moon WK. Sonoelastography in distinguishing benign from malignant complex breast mass and making the decision to biopsy. Korean J Radiol. 2013; 14:559–567.

10. Cho N, Moon WK, Chang JM, Kim SJ, Lyou CY, Choi HY. Aliasing artifact depicted on ultrasound (US)-elastography for breast cystic lesions mimicking solid masses. Acta Radiol. 2011; 52:3–7.

11. Barr RG. Sonographic breast elastography: a primer. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31:773–783.

12. Athanasiou A, Tardivon A, Tanter M, Sigal-Zafrani B, Bercoff J, Deffieux T, et al. Breast lesions: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging--preliminary results. Radiology. 2010; 256:297–303.

13. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, McLean D, Brauer K, Purdie C, et al. Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res. 2010; 12:R104.

14. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Kim SJ. Breast mass evaluation: factors influencing the quality of US elastography. Radiology. 2011; 259:59–64.

15. Tozaki M, Fukuma E. Pattern classification of ShearWave™ Elastography images for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant solid breast masses. Acta Radiol. 2011; 52:1069–1075.

16. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ, Schafer FK, Svensson WE, Hooley RJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology. 2012; 262:435–449.

17. Gweon HM, Youk JH, Son EJ, Kim JA. Visually assessed colour overlay features in shear-wave elastography for breast masses: quantification and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:658–663.

18. Lee EJ, Jung HK, Ko KH, Lee JT, Yoon JH. Diagnostic performances of shear wave elastography: which parameter to use in differential diagnosis of solid breast masses? Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:1803–1811.

19. Yoon JH, Ko KH, Jung HK, Lee JT. Qualitative pattern classification of shear wave elastography for breast masses: how it correlates to quantitative measurements. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82:2199–2204.

20. Kim H, Youk JH, Gweon HM, Kim JA, Son EJ. Diagnostic performance of qualitative shear-wave elastography according to different color map opacities for breast masses. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82:e326–e331.

21. Lee SH, Cho N, Chang JM, Koo HR, Kim JY, Kim WH, et al. Twoview versus single-view shear-wave elastography: comparison of observer performance in differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. Radiology 2013 Sep 12 [Epub]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.13130561.

22. Lee SH, Moon WK, Cho N, Chang JM, Moon HG, Han W, et al. Shear-wave elastographic features of breast cancers: comparison with mechanical elasticity and histopathologic characteristics. Invest Radiol 2013 Oct 28 [Epub]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000006.

23. Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ, Han KH, Kim JA. Diagnostic value of commercially available shear-wave elastography for breast cancers: integration into BI-RADS classification with subcategories of category 4. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:2695–2704.

24. Lee SH, Chang JM, Cho N, Koo HR, Bae MS, Kim WH, et al. Added value of shear-wave elastography in evaluation of breast masses detected on screening ultrasound. In : In: Radiological Society of North America 99th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; 2013 Dec 1-6; Chicago, IL.

25. Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Berg WA. Probably benign lesions at screening breast us in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial. Radiology. 2013; 269:701–712.

26. Schafer FK, Hooley RJ, Ohlinger R, Hahne U, Madjar H, Svensson WE, et al. ShearWave™ Elastography BE1 multinational breast study: additional SWE™ features support potential to downgrade BI-RADS®-3 lesions. Ultraschall Med. 2013; 34:254–259.

27. Lim J, Cho N, Yi A, Chang JM, Moon WK. Can US-elastography help reduce the number of short-term follow-ups for BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected on supplemental screening breast US? In : In: Radiological Society of North America 98th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; 2012 Nov 25-30; Chicago, IL.

28. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299:2151–2163.

29. Bae MS, Han W, Koo HR, Cho N, Chang JM, Yi A, et al. Characteristics of breast cancers detected by ultrasound screening in women with negative mammograms. Cancer Sci. 2011; 102:1862–1867.

30. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Yi A, Koo HR, Han W, et al. Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 129:89–97.

31. Regner DM, Hesley GK, Hangiandreou NJ, Morton MJ, Nordland MR, Meixner DD, et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging--clinical experience of multiple observers. Radiology. 2006; 238:425–437.

32. Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM, Hesley GK, Sisney GA, Svensson WE, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology. 2007; 245:401–410.

33. Cosgrove DO, Berg WA, Dore CJ, Skyba DM, Henry JP, Gay J, et al. Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22:1023–1032.

34. Gweon HM, Youk JH, Son EJ, Kim JA. Clinical application of qualitative assessment for breast masses in shear-wave elastography. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82:e680–e685.

35. Mun HS, Choi SH, Kook SH, Choi Y, Jeong WK, Kim Y. Validation of intra- and interobserver reproducibility of shearwave elastography: phantom study. Ultrasonics. 2013; 53:1039–1043.

36. 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; 23:2423–2440.

37. Moon WK, Chang SC, Chang JM, Cho N, Huang CS, Kuo JW, et al. Classification of breast tumors using elastographic and B-mode features: comparison of automatic selection of representative slice and physician-selected slice of images. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013; 39:1147–1157.