Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2011

01-11-2011 | Review

Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis

Authors: Xia Gong, Qiuhua Xu, Zhengliang Xu, Ping Xiong, Weili Yan, Yazhu Chen

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

The prognostic significance of ultrasound real-time elastography (RTE) in patients with breast lesions is controversial. There are two different diagnostic methods: the elasticity score (ES) and the strain ratio (SR). A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model to assess the overall sensitivity and specificity of RTE in the differentiation of breast lesions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library before February 2011 were searched. A total of 22 studies, which included 4,713 breast nodules in 4,266 patients were analyzed. The overall mean sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant breast lesions by RTE were 0.834 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.814–0.853] and 0.842 (95% CI, 0.829–0.854) for ES, and 0.883 (95% CI, 0.844–0.916) and 0.814 (95% CI, 0.786–0.839) for SR, respectively. RTE has a high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of breast lesions and can potentially reduce unnecessary breast biopsies.
Literature
1.
Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE et al (1999) Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 213(3):889–894PubMed
2.
Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA (1995) Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196:123–134PubMed
3.
Jackson VP (1995) The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 33(6):1161–1170PubMed
4.
Duncan JL III, Cederbom GJ, Champaign JL, Smetherman DH, King TA, Farr GH et al (2000) Benign diagnosis by image-guided core-needle breast biopsy. Am Surg 66(1):5–10PubMed
5.
Chiou SY, Chou YH, Chiou HJM, Wang HK, Tiu CM, Tseng LM et al (2006) Sonographic features of nonpalpable breast cancer: a study based on ultrasound-guided wire-localized surgical biopsies. Ultrasound Med Biol 32(9):1299–1306PubMedCrossRef
6.
Berlin JA (1997) Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet 350(9072):185–186PubMedCrossRef
7.
Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P (2005) A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess 9(12):1–113
8.
Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12(14):1293–1316PubMedCrossRef
9.
Altman DG, Bland JM (2003) Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 326(7382):219PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31PubMedCrossRef
11.
Moon WK, Huang CS, Shen WC, Takada E, Chang RF, Joe J et al (2009) Analysis of elastographic and B-mode features at sonoelastography for breast tumor classification. Ultrasound Med Biol 35(11):1794–1802PubMedCrossRef
12.
Leong LC, Sim LS, Lee YS, Ng FC, Wan CM, Fook-Chong SM et al (2010) A prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional breast ultrasound. Clin Radiol 65(11):887–894PubMedCrossRef
13.
Barr RG (2010) Real-time ultrasound elasticity of the breast: initial clinical results. Ultrasound Q 26(2):61–66PubMedCrossRef
14.
Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T et al (2006) Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 239(2):341–350PubMedCrossRef
15.
Thomas A, Kummel S, Fritzche F, Warm M, Ebert B, Hammet B et al (2006) Real-time sonoelastography performed in addition to B-mode ultrasound and mammography: improved differentiation of breast lesions? Acad Radiol 13(12):1496–1504PubMedCrossRef
16.
Thomas A, Fischer T, Frey H, Ohlinger R, Grunwald S, Blohmer JU et al (2006) Real-time elastography: an advanced method of ultrasound—first results in 108 patients with breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28(3):335–340PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zhi H, Ou B, Luo BM, Feng X, Wen YL, Yang HY (2007) Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med 26(6):807–815PubMed
18.
Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Cha JH, Jang M, Seong MH (2008) Nonpalpable breast masses: evaluation by US elastography. Korean J Radiol 9(2):111–118PubMedCrossRef
19.
Tan SM, Teh HS, Mancer JF, Poh WT (2008) Improving B mode ultrasound of breast lesions with real-time ultrasound elastography: a clinical approach. Breast 17:252–257PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zhu QL, Jiang YX, Liu JB, Liu H, Sun Q, Dai Q et al (2008) Real-time ultrasound elastography: its potential role in assessment of breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 34(8):1232–1238PubMedCrossRef
21.
Scaperrotta G, Ferranti C, Costa C, Mariani L, Marchesini M, Suman L et al (2008) Role of sonoelastography in non-palpable breast lesions. Eur Radiol 18(11):2381–2389PubMedCrossRef
22.
Sohn YM, Kim MJ, Kim EK et al (2009) Sonographic elastography combined with conventional sonography: how much is it helpful for diagnostic performance? J Ultrasound Med 28:413–420PubMed
23.
Fleury Ede F, Fleury JC, Piato S, Roveda D (2009) New elastographic classification of breast lesions during and after compression. Diagn Interv Radiol 15(2):96–103PubMed
24.
Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS (2009) Real-time US elastography in the differentiation of suspicious microcalcifications on mammography. Eur Radiol 19(7):1621–1628PubMedCrossRef
25.
Schaefer FK, Heer I, Schaefer PJ et al (2011) Breast ultrasound elastography—results of 193 breast lesions in a prospective study with histopathologic correlation. Eur J Radiol 77:450–456PubMedCrossRef
26.
Cho N, Moon WK, Kim HY, Chang MJ, Park SH, Lyou CY (2010) Sonoelastographic strain index for differentiation of benign and malignant nonpalpable breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 29:1–7PubMed
27.
Chung SY, Moon WK, Choi JW, Cho N, Jang MJ, Kim KG (2010) Differentiation of benign from malignant nonpalpable breast masses: a comparison of computer-assisted quantification and visual assessment of lesion stiffness with the use of sonographic elastography. Acta Radiol 51(1):9–14PubMedCrossRef
28.
Raza S, Odulate A, Ong EM, Chikarmane S, Harston CW (2010) Using real-time tissue elastography for breast lesion evaluation: our initial experience. J Ultrasound Med 29:551–563PubMed
29.
Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Slowinski T, Fischer T et al (2010) Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Acad Radiol 17(5):558–563PubMedCrossRef
30.
Regini E, Bagnera S, Tota D, Campanino P, Luparia A, Barisone F et al (2010) Role of sonoelastography in characterising breast nodules Preliminary experience with 120 lesions. Radiol Med 115(4):551–562PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zhi H, Xiao XY, Yang HY, Ou B, Wen YL, Luo BM (2010) Ultrasonic elastography in breast cancer diagnosis: strain ratio vs. 5-point scale. Acad Radiol 17(10):1227–1233PubMedCrossRef
32.
Parajuly SS, Lan PY, Yan L, Gang YZ, Lin L (2010) Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 11(3):809–814PubMed
33.
Moon WK, Choi JW, Cho N, Park SH, Chang JM, Jang M et al (2010) Computer-aided analysis of ultrasound elasticity images for classification of benign and malignant breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(6):1460–1465PubMedCrossRef
34.
Lee JH, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi JJ, Jeong SH, Yim HW et al (2011) Role and clinical usefulness of elastography in small breast masses. Acad Radiol 18(1):74–80PubMedCrossRef
35.
Satake H, Nishio A, Ikeda M, Ishigaki S, Shimamoto K, Hirano M et al (2011) Predictive value for malignancy of suspicious breast masses of BI-RADS categories 4 and 5 using ultrasound elastography and MR diffusion-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(1):202–209PubMedCrossRef
36.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634PubMed
37.
Pham B, Platt R, McAuley L, Klassen TP, Moher D (2001) Is there a “best” way to detect and minimize publication bias? An empirical evaluation. Eval Health Prof 24(2):109–125PubMed
38.
Tang S, Huang G, Liu J, Liu T, Treven L, Song S et al (2011) Usefulness of (18)F-FDGPET, combined FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 78:142–150PubMedCrossRef
39.
Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM, Hesley GK, Sisney GA, Svensson WE et al (2007) Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology 245(2):401–410PubMedCrossRef
40.
Regner DM, Hesley GK, Hangiandreou NJ, Morton MJ, Nordland MR, Meixner DD et al (2006) Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging—clinical experience of multiple observers. Radiology 238(2):425–437PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis
Authors
Xia Gong
Qiuhua Xu
Zhengliang Xu
Ping Xiong
Weili Yan
Yazhu Chen
Publication date
01-11-2011
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1745-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2011 Go to the issue

Clinical Trial

Final overall survival results and effect of prolonged (≥1 year) first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy for metastatic breast cancer in the ATHENA trial

Epidemiology

Multivitamin use and breast cancer outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer: the Life After Cancer Epidemiology study

Invited Commentary

Circulating free DNA: a new surrogate marker for minimal residual disease?

Brief Report

Distinct expressions of microRNAs that directly target estrogen receptor α in human breast cancer

Letter to the Editor

Re Panoff et al., Risk of locoregional recurrence by receptor status in breast cancer patients receiving modern systemic therapy and post-mastectomy radiation

Preclinical study

HER2-positive breast cancer cells resistant to trastuzumab and lapatinib lose reliance upon HER2 and are sensitive to the multitargeted kinase inhibitor sorafenib

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting Coverage

Highlights of the Day: Breast cancer – metastatic

Breast Cancer Video

In this session, Dr. Wolff provides his key takeaways from the data presented in the metastatic breast cancer oral abstract session at ASCO 2024.

Watch now

Highlights of the Day: Gynecologic cancer

Gynecologic Cancer Video

Highlights of the Day: Breast Cancer – local/regional/adjuvant

Breast Cancer Video

Neoadjuvant dual immunotherapy improves melanoma outcomes

04-06-2024 Melanoma News

» View more highlights on the ASCO 2024 congress hub page

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits