Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 4/2014

01-04-2014 | Breast

What are the characteristics of breast cancers misclassified as benign by quantitative ultrasound shear wave elastography?

Authors: S. J. Vinnicombe, P. Whelehan, K. Thomson, D. McLean, C. A. Purdie, L. B. Jordan, S. Hubbard, A. J. Evans

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Shear wave elastography (SWE) is a promising adjunct to greyscale ultrasound in differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. The purpose of this study was to characterise breast cancers which are not stiff on quantitative SWE, to elucidate potential sources of error in clinical application of SWE to evaluation of breast masses.

Methods

Three hundred and two consecutive patients examined by SWE who underwent immediate surgery for breast cancer were included. Characteristics of 280 lesions with suspicious SWE values (mean stiffness >50 kPa) were compared with 22 lesions with benign SWE values (<50 kPa). Statistical significance of the differences was assessed using non-parametric goodness-of-fit tests.

Results

Pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) masses were more often soft on SWE than masses representing invasive breast cancer. Invasive cancers that were soft were more frequently: histological grade 1, tubular subtype, ≤10 mm invasive size and detected at screening mammography. No significant differences were found with respect to the presence of invasive lobular cancer, vascular invasion, hormone and HER-2 receptor status. Lymph node positivity was less common in soft cancers.

Conclusion

Malignant breast masses classified as benign by quantitative SWE tend to have better prognostic features than those correctly classified as malignant.

Key points:

• Over 90 % of cancers assessable with ultrasound have a mean stiffness >50 kPa.
• ‘Softinvasive cancers are frequently small (≤10 mm), low grade and screen-detected.
• Pure DCIS masses are more often soft than invasive cancers (>40 %).
• Large symptomatic masses are better evaluated with SWE than small clinically occult lesions.
• When assessing small lesions, ‘softnessshould not raise the threshold for biopsy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Yi A, Koo H, Han W et al (2012) Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:89–97CrossRef Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Yi A, Koo H, Han W et al (2012) Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:89–97CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Berg W, Cosgrove D, Doré C, Schäfer F, Svensson W et al (2012) Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 262:435–449PubMedCrossRef Berg W, Cosgrove D, Doré C, Schäfer F, Svensson W et al (2012) Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 262:435–449PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, Brauer K, Jordan L, Purdie C et al (2012) Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with gray scale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification. Br J Cancer 107:224–229PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, Brauer K, Jordan L, Purdie C et al (2012) Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with gray scale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification. Br J Cancer 107:224–229PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Cosgrove D, Berg W, Doré C, Skyba D, Henry J, Gay J, Cohen-Bacrie C, BE1 Study Group (2012) Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol 22:1023–1032PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Cosgrove D, Berg W, Doré C, Skyba D, Henry J, Gay J, Cohen-Bacrie C, BE1 Study Group (2012) Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol 22:1023–1032PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, McLean D, Brauer K, Purdie C et al (2012) Invasive breast cancer: Relationships between Shear Wave Elastography Findings and Histological Prognostic Factors. Radiology 263:673–677PubMedCrossRef Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, McLean D, Brauer K, Purdie C et al (2012) Invasive breast cancer: Relationships between Shear Wave Elastography Findings and Histological Prognostic Factors. Radiology 263:673–677PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chang JM, Park IA, Lee SH et al (2013) Stiffness of tumours measured by shear-wave elastography correlated with subtypes of breast cancer. Eur Radiol 23:2450–2458PubMedCrossRef Chang JM, Park IA, Lee SH et al (2013) Stiffness of tumours measured by shear-wave elastography correlated with subtypes of breast cancer. Eur Radiol 23:2450–2458PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Purdie CA, Jordan LB, McCullough JB, Edwards SL, Cunningham J, Walsh M et al (2010) HER2 assessment on core biopsy specimens using monoclonal antibody CB11 accurately determines HER2 status in breast carcinoma. Histopathology 56:702–707PubMedCrossRef Purdie CA, Jordan LB, McCullough JB, Edwards SL, Cunningham J, Walsh M et al (2010) HER2 assessment on core biopsy specimens using monoclonal antibody CB11 accurately determines HER2 status in breast carcinoma. Histopathology 56:702–707PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference NHS Breast Screening Programme (2005) Guidelines for pathology reporting in breast disease. NHSBSP Publication 58. Public Health England, London NHS Breast Screening Programme (2005) Guidelines for pathology reporting in breast disease. NHSBSP Publication 58. Public Health England, London
9.
go back to reference Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, McLean D, Brauer K, Purdie C et al (2010) Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res 12:R104PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, McLean D, Brauer K, Purdie C et al (2010) Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res 12:R104PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Yoon HY, Jung HK, Lee JT, Ko KH (2013) Shear-wave elastography in the diagnosis of solid breast masses: what leads to false-negative or false-positive results? Eur Radiol 23:2432–2440PubMedCrossRef Yoon HY, Jung HK, Lee JT, Ko KH (2013) Shear-wave elastography in the diagnosis of solid breast masses: what leads to false-negative or false-positive results? Eur Radiol 23:2432–2440PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Dhillon R, Depree P, Metcalf C, Wylie E (2006) Screen-detected mucinous breast carcinoma: potential for delayed diagnosis. Clin Radiol 61:423–430PubMedCrossRef Dhillon R, Depree P, Metcalf C, Wylie E (2006) Screen-detected mucinous breast carcinoma: potential for delayed diagnosis. Clin Radiol 61:423–430PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tozaki M, Fukuma E (2011) Pattern classification of shear wave elastography images for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant solid breast masses. Acta Radiol 52:1069–1075PubMedCrossRef Tozaki M, Fukuma E (2011) Pattern classification of shear wave elastography images for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant solid breast masses. Acta Radiol 52:1069–1075PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Gweon HM, Youk JH, Son EJ, Kim J-A (2013) Visually assessed colour overlay features in shear-wave elastography for breast masses: quantification and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 23:658–663PubMedCrossRef Gweon HM, Youk JH, Son EJ, Kim J-A (2013) Visually assessed colour overlay features in shear-wave elastography for breast masses: quantification and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 23:658–663PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
What are the characteristics of breast cancers misclassified as benign by quantitative ultrasound shear wave elastography?
Authors
S. J. Vinnicombe
P. Whelehan
K. Thomson
D. McLean
C. A. Purdie
L. B. Jordan
S. Hubbard
A. J. Evans
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3079-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

European Radiology 4/2014 Go to the issue