Sonoelastography in the diagnosis of breast mass: an extended armamentarium

Authors

  • K. Manickkam Kannappan Department of Surgery, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Bhawna Dev Department of Radio Diagnosis, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Ramya Ramakrishnan Department of Surgery, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20180344

Keywords:

Biopsy, Evaluation of breast masses, Strain elastography, Strain ratio

Abstract

Background: To presenting with breast lumps are very common in surgical practice and the routine use of ultrasound in the diagnosis is well validated. But there are gray zones in equivocal cases which increase the number of negative biopsies. To increase the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound by adding another non-invasive modality, namely strain elastography, can reduce this rate. To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of strain elastography in the diagnosis of breast masses.

Methods: As part of the triple assessment patients presenting with breast lumps underwent ultrasonography and strain elastography, where strain ratios were calculated. Based on which they either underwent percutaneous biopsy or surgical excision. A total of 30 patients with breast lesions underwent sonomammogram in which the breast lesions were both graded with BIRADS and also the elastography and strain ratio was calculated.

Results: Strain ratio has higher sensitivity and specificity which makes it a valid diagnostic tool in the evaluation of breast masses.

Conclusions: It can also help in reducing the number of benign lesion biopsies and also reduce the number of negative biopsies. Being a non-invasive modality, it is much more patient compatible and economically cheaper when compared with MRI and modalities.

References

Yi A, Chon N, Chang JM, Koo HR, La Yun B, Moon WK. Sonoelastography for 1786 non palpable breast masses: Diagnostiv value in the decision to biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1033-40.

Feig SA. Current status of screening ultrasound. In: Feig SA, ed. 2005 syllabus: Categorical course in diagnostic radiology - breast imaging. Oak Brook: Radiological society of North America; 2005:143-154.

Gerger D, Coşkun ZÜ, Ertürk A, Uzun Ş. Meme Kitlelerinin Değerlendirilmesinde Elastografi ve Difüzyon MRG’nin Yeri. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi. 2013;29:8-14.

Boba M, Kołtun U, Bobek-Billewicz B, Chmielik EB, Olejnik T. False-negative results of breast core needle biopsies - retrospective analysis of 988 biopsies. Pol J Radiol. 2011;76:25-9.

Balçık A, Polat AV, Bayrak İK, Polat AK. Efficacy of Sonoelastography in Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Breast Masses. The Journal of Breast Health. 2016;12(1):37-43.

Yerli H, Yilmaz T, Kaskati T, Gulay H. Qualitative and semi-quantitative evaluations of solid breast lesions by sonoelastography. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30:179-86.

Mousa AE, Aboelatta M, Zalata K. Combined sonoelastographic scoring and strain ratio in evaluation of breast masses. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2012 Dec 31;43(4):647-56.

Sohn YM, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Moon HJ, Kim SJ. Sonographic elastography combined with conventional sonography: how much is it helpful for diagnostic performance? J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:413-20.

Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Cha JH, Jang M, Seong MH. Nonpalpable breast masses: evaluation by US elastography. Korean J Radiol. 2008;9:111-8.

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;239:341-50.

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 of Radiology. 2013 Aug 1;14(4):559-67.

Downloads

Published

2018-01-25

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles