Ultrasonography.  2019 Apr;38(2):93-105. 10.14366/usg.18053.

Future of breast elastography

• Barr RG

• KMID: 2447346
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14366/usg.18053

Abstract

Both strain elastography and shear wave elastography have been shown to have high sensitivity and specificity for characterizing breast lesions as benign or malignant. Training is important for both strain and shear wave elastography. The unique feature of benign lesions measuring smaller on elastography than B-mode imaging and malignant lesions appearing larger on elastography is an important feature for characterization of breast masses. There are several artifacts which can contain diagnostic information or alert to technique problems. Both strain and shear wave elastography continue to have improvements and new techniques will soon be available for clinical use that may provide additional diagnostic information. This paper reviews the present state of breast elastography and discusses future techniques that are not yet in clinical practice.

Keyword

Breast; Elasticity imaging techniques; Strain; Shear wave; Strain ratio; Breast neoplasms

MeSH Terms

Artifacts
Breast Neoplasms
Breast*
Elasticity Imaging Techniques*
Sensitivity and Specificity

Reference

References

1. Tanter M, Bercoff J, Athanasiou A, Deffieux T, Gennisson JL, Montaldo G, et al. Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008; 34:1373–1386.

2. 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.

3. MacSween RN, Burt AD. Histologic spectrum of alcoholic liver disease. Semin Liver Dis. 1986; 6:221–232.

4. Frank DN, Robertson CE, Hamm CM, Kpadeh Z, Zhang T, Chen H, et al. Disease phenotype and genotype are associated with shifts in intestinal-associated microbiota in inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011; 17:179–184.

5. Barr RG, Nakashima K, Amy D, Cosgrove D, Farrokh A, Schafer F, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 2: breast. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015; 41:1148–1160.

6. Shiina T, Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML, Hall TJ, Bamber JC, Barr RG, 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.

7. Barr RG, Zhang Z. Effects of precompression on elasticity imaging of the breast: development of a clinically useful semiquantitative method of precompression assessment. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31:895–902.

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

9. Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ. Shear-wave elastography in breast ultrasonography: the state of the art. Ultrasonography. 2017; 36:300–309.

10. Grajo JR, Barr RG. Strain elastography for prediction of breast cancer tumor grades. J Ultrasound Med. 2014; 33:129–134.

11. Barr RG. Real-time ultrasound elasticity of the breast: initial clinical results. Ultrasound Q. 2010; 26:61–66.

12. Barr RG, Destounis S, Lackey LB 2nd, Svensson WE, Balleyguier C, Smith C. Evaluation of breast lesions using sonographic elasticity imaging: a multicenter trial. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31:281–287.

13. Barr RG, Zhang Z. Shear-wave elastography of the breast: value of a quality measure and comparison with strain elastography. Radiology. 2015; 275:45–53.

14. Hall TJ, Zhu Y, Spalding CS. In vivo real-time freehand palpation imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003; 29:427–435.

15. Alhabshi SM, Rahmat K, Abdul Halim N, Aziz S, Radhika S, Gan GC, et al. Semi-quantitative and qualitative assessment of breast ultrasound elastography in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013; 39:568–578.

16. Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Degenhardt F. Diagnostic value of strain ratio measurement in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. Ultraschall Med. 2011; 32:400–405.

17. Stachs A, Hartmann S, Stubert J, Dieterich M, Martin A, Kundt G, et al. Differentiating between malignant and benign breast masses: factors limiting sonoelastographic strain ratio. Ultraschall Med. 2013; 34:131–136.

18. 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. Acad Radiol. 2010; 17:558–563.

19. Ueno E, Umemoto T, Bando H, Tohno E, Waki K, Matsumura T. New quantitative method in breast elastography: fat lesion ratio (FLR). In : Radiological Society of North America 93rd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; 2007 Nov 25-30; Chicago, IL, USA.

20. Sousaris N, Barr RG. Sonoelastography of breast lymphoma. Ultrasound Q. 2016; 32:208–211.

21. Barr RG. Breast elastography. New York: Thieme Publishers;2014.

22. Sousaris N, Barr RG. Sonographic elastography of mastitis. J Ultrasound Med. 2016; 35:1791–1797.

23. 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.

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

25. Raza S, Odulate A, Ong EM, Chikarmane S, Harston CW. Using realtime tissue elastography for breast lesion evaluation: our initial experience. J Ultrasound Med. 2010; 29:551–563.

26. Ueno E, Ito A. Diagnosis of breast cancer by elasticity imaging. Eizo Joho Med. 2004; 36:2–6.

27. Barr RG, De Silbestri A, Scotti V, Manzoni F, Rebuffi C, Capittini C, et al. Diagnostic performance and accuracy of the 3 interpreting methods of breast strain elastography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. In : AFSUMB 2018; 2018 May 23-26; Seoul, Korea.

28. Yang WT, Parikh JR, Stavros AT, Otto P, Maislin G. Exploring the negative likelihood ratio and how it can be used to minimize falsepositives in breast imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210:301–306.

29. 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.

30. 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. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31:289–294.

31. Barr RG, Lackey AE. The utility of the "bull's-eye" artifact on breast elasticity imaging in reducing breast lesion biopsy rate. Ultrasound Q. 2011; 27:151–155.

32. Tian J, Liu Q, Wang X, Xing P, Yang Z, Wu C. Application of 3D and 2D quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) to differentiate between benign and malignant breast masses. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:41216.

33. Hendriks GA, Hollander B, Menssen J, Milkowski A, Hansen HH, de Korte CL. Automated 3D ultrasound elastography of the breast: a phantom validation study. Phys Med Biol. 2016; 61:2665–2679.

34. Hudert CA, Tzschatzsch H, Guo J, Rudolph B, Blaker H, Loddenkemper C, et al. US time-harmonic elastography: detection of liver fibrosis in adolescents with extreme obesity with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Radiology. 2018; 288:99–106.

35. Neuschler EI, Butler R, Young CA, Barke LD, Bertrand ML, Bohm-Velez M, et al. A pivotal study of optoacoustic imaging to diagnose benign and malignant breast masses: a new evaluation tool for radiologists. Radiology. 2018; 287:398–412.

36. Nikolov SI. Iterative autocorrelation motion estimation with application to elasticity imaging. In : 2013 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS); 2013 Jul 21-25; Prague, Czech.