[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Advanced Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Therapy ›› 2023, Vol. 7 ›› Issue (4): 394-400.doi: 10.37015/AUDT.2023.220041

• • 上一篇    下一篇

  

  • 收稿日期:2022-11-15 修回日期:2023-02-15 接受日期:2023-03-21 出版日期:2023-12-30 发布日期:2023-10-23

The Value of VTTQ Combined with B-mode US for Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Breast Masses by Comparing with SE: A Clinical Research

Lujing Li, MDa, Zuofeng Xu, MDa,*()   

  1. aDepartment of Ultrasound, the Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
  • Received:2022-11-15 Revised:2023-02-15 Accepted:2023-03-21 Online:2023-12-30 Published:2023-10-23
  • Contact: Department of Ultrasound, the Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. e-mail: lilujing@mail2.sysu.edu.cn

RichHTML

5

PDF (PC)

309

PDF (Mobile)

1

Abstract:

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of virtual touch tissue quantification (VTTQ) combined with B-mode ultrasonograpgy (US), strain elastography (SE) combined with B-mode US and B-mode US alone in differentiating the properties of breast lesions.

Methods A retrospective database was queried for 283 healthy subjects and 100 consecutive patients with 130 breast lesions. All the cases were examined by B-mode US, VTTQ and SE. Histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) values of each data set was compared.

Results Twenty-two lesions were determined as malignant and 108 as benign. The best cutoff point of VTTQ was 7.82 m/s. The AUC of B-mode US combined with VTTQ or SE was greater than that of B-mode US alone (0.913 or 0.918 vs. 0.797) (P = 0.007 and 0.012).

Conclusion Both VTTQ and SE could give help to B-mode US in distinguishing benign from malignant breast lesions about elastography values. There was no difference between them.

Key words: B-mode ultrasonography, Virtual touch tissue quantification, Strain elastography

"

"

Benign lesions (n =108) Malignant lesions (n = 22)
Histopathologic diagnosis n Histopathologic diagnosis n
Fibroadenoma 74 Invasive ductal carcinoma 16
Fibrocystic mastopathy 19 Ductal carcinoma in situ 1
Benign phyllodes tumor 5 Mucinous carcinoma 1
Intraductal papilloma 4 Invasive micropapillary carcinoma 1
Tubular adenoma of breast 4 Malignant phyllodes tumor 1
Hyperplasia 1 Lobular carcinoma in situ 1
Chronic inflammation 1 Neuroendocrine carcinoma 1

"

Lesion type Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Total
Benign, n 16 53 39 0 108
Malignant, n 0 1 7 14 22
Total 16 54 46 14 130

"

Benign lesions (n =108) Malignant lesions (n = 22)
Histopathologic diagnosis Median SWVs (m/s) Histopathologic diagnosis Median SWVs (m/s)
Fibroadenoma 3.07 ± 1.21 Invasive ductal carcinoma 8.57 ± 1.71
Fibrocystic mastopathy 3.35 ± 2.15 Ductal carcinoma in situ 9.00
Benign phyllodes tumor 2.30 ± 0.33 Mucinous carcinoma 9.00
Intraductal papilloma 4.31 ± 3.16 Invasive micropapillary carcinoma 9.00
Tubular adenoma of breast 2.98 ± 0.69 Malignant phyllodes tumor 0.60
Hyperplasia 2.81 Lobular carcinoma in situ 3.13
Chronic inflammation 1.89 Neuroendocrine carcinoma 9.00

"

Lesion type Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4 Score 5 Total
Benign, n 58 41 3 6 0 108
Malignant, n 1 1 1 13 6 22
Total 59 42 4 19 6 130

"

Item Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Accuracy (%) PPV (%) NPV (%)
B-mode US 95.5 63.9 69.2 35 98.6
B-mode US combined with VTTQ 86.4 96.3* 94.6* 82.6 97.2
B-mode US combined with SE 90.9 92.6* 92.3* 71.4 98.0

"

[1] Hoffmann R, Reich C, Skerl K. Evaluating different combination methods to analyse ultrasound and shear wave elastography images automatically through discriminative convolutional neural network in breast cancer imaging. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2022; 17:2231-2237.
doi: 10.1007/s11548-022-02737-6
[2] Masroor I, Ahmed MN, Pash S. To evaluate the role of sonography as an adjunct to mammography in women with dense breasts. J Pak Med Assoc 2009; 59:298-301.
pmid: 19438134
[3] Maskarinec G, Meng L, Ursin G. Ethnic differences in mammographic densities. Int J Epidemiol 2001; 30:959-965.
doi: 10.1093/ije/30.5.959 pmid: 11689504
[4] American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system, Breast imaging atlas. fifth ed. Reston 2013
[5] Margolin FR, Leung JW, Jacobs RP, Denny SR. Percutaneous imaging-guided core breast biopsy: 5 years’ experience in a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:559-564.
doi: 10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770559
[6] Wiratkapun C, Bunyapaiboonsri W, Wibulpolprasert B, Lertsithichai P. Biopsy rate and positive predictive value for breast cancer in BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions. J Med Assoc Thai 2010; 93:830-837.
pmid: 20649064
[7] Matsumoto K, Miyaaki H, Fukushima M, Sasaki R, Haraguchi M, Miuma S, Nakao K. The impact of single-nucleotide polymorphisms on liver stiffness and controlled attenuation parameter in patients treated with direct-acting antiviral drugs for hepatitis C infection. Biomed Rep 2022; 16:9.
doi: 10.3892/br.2021.1492 pmid: 34987793
[8] Sigrist RMS, El Kaffas A, Jeffrey RB, Rosenberg J, Willmann JK. Intra-individual comparison between 2-D shear wave elastography (GE System) and virtual touch tissue quantification (Siemens System) in grading liver fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017; 43:2774-2782.
doi: S0301-5629(17)31295-4 pmid: 28967501
[9] 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.
doi: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.2.289 pmid: 22298873
[10] Zhi H, Ou B, Xiao XY, Peng YL, Wang Y, Liu LS, et al. Ultrasound elastography of breast lesions in Chinese women: A multicenter study in China. Clin Breast Cancer 2013; 13:392-400.
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2013.02.015 pmid: 23830799
[11] 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.
doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.02.002 pmid: 18395961
[12] Tozaki M, Isobe S, Fukuma E. Preliminary study of ultrasonographic tissue quantification of the breast using the acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) technology. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80:e182-e187.
[13] Wojcinski S, Brandhorst K, Sadigh G, Hillemanns P, Degenhardt F. Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging with Virtual Touch™ tissue quantification: mean shear wave velocity of malignant and benign breast masses. Int J Womens Health 2013; 5:619-627
doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S50953 pmid: 24109199
[14] Tamaki K, Tamaki N, Kamada Y, Uehara K, Miyashita M, Ishida T, et al. A non-invasive modality: the US Virtual Touch Tissue Quantification (VTTQ) for evaluation of breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2013; 43:889-895.
[15] Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ, Schäfer FK, Svensson WE, Hooley RJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: The BE 1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 2012;262: 435-449.
[16] Youk JH, Son EJ, Gweon HM, Kim H, Park YJ, Kim JA. Comparison of strain and shear wave elastography for the differentiation of benign from malignant breast lesions, combined with B-mode ultrasonography: qualitative and quantitative assessments. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014; 40:2336-2344.
doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.05.020 pmid: 25130444
[17] Hou XJ, Sun AX, Zhou XL, Ji Q, Wang HB, Wei H, et al. The application of Virtual Touch tissue quantification (VTQ) in diagnosis of thyroid lesions: A preliminary study. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:797-801.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.12.023
[18] Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Kim SJ. Breast mass evaluation: factors influencing the quality of US elastography. Radiology 2011; 259:59-64
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
[an error occurred while processing this directive]