Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound Elastography in T1-Stage Breast Cancer

Thị Diệu Linh Cù1, , Nguỹen Bich Diep1, Luu Hong Nhung2, Vu Dang Luu1, Lai Thu Huong2, Nguyen Thi Thu Hang2, Nguyen Thanh Thuy2, Nguyen Thi To Ngan2, Nguyen Thi Thu Thao2, Nguyen Thị Khoi2, Nguyen Thi Huyen2, Pham Thị Phuong2, Tran Thi Do Quyen2, Nguyen Thi Thu Ha2, Nguyen Thi Quynh Tram2, Nguyen Khoi Viet2
1 Hanoi Medical University
2 Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Bach Mai Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of combining strain elastography (SE) and shear-wave elastography (SWE) with B-mode ultrasonography in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions measuring less than 20 mm. A total of 84 patients with 95 breast lesions measuring ≤20 mm and classified as BI-RADS category 3 or higher on B-mode ultrasonography were evaluated using SWE and SE. The results showed that the diameter ratio, fat-to-lesion strain ratio (FTL ratio), and mean elasticity value (Emean) were significantly higher in malignant lesions than in benign lesions (all p < 0.001). A diameter ratio cutoff of 1.01 yielded a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 83.9%; an FTL ratio cutoff of 3.24 yielded a sensitivity of 97.0% and a specificity of 71.0%; and an Emean cutoff of 60 kPa yielded a sensitivity of 78.8% and a specificity of 91.9%. The addition of elastography to B-mode ultrasonography improved the specificity and diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions; however, it reduced diagnostic sensitivity, particularly for lesions measuring ≤10 mm. Therefore, BI-RADS categories should not be downgraded solely on the basis of a single elastographic cutoff value.

Article Details

References

1. Filho AM, Laversanne M, Ferlay J, et al. The globocan 2022 cancer estimates: Data sources, methods, and a
snapshot of the cancer burden worldwide. International journal of cancer. 2025;156(7):1336-1346. doi:10.1002/
ijc.35278
2. Mariapun S, Li J, Yip CH, Taib NAM, Teo S-H. Ethnic differences in mammographic densities: An asian crosssectional
study. PloS one. 2015;10(2):e0117568. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117568
3. Wang Y, Tang L, Chen P, Chen M. The role of a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis system and
elastography in reducing unnecessary breast lesion biopsies. Clinical Breast Cancer. 2023;23(3):e112-e121. doi:
10.1016/j.clbc.2022.12.016
4. Song EJ, Sohn Y-M, Seo M. Diagnostic performances of shear-wave elastography and b-mode ultrasound to
differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions: The emphasis on the cutoff value of qualitative and quantitative
parameters. Clinical Imaging. 2018;50:302-307. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.05.007
5. Barr RG, Nakashima K, Amy D, et al. Wfumb guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound
elastography: Part 2: Breast. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2015;41(5):1148-1160.
6. Kim SJ, Ko KH, Jung HK, Kim H. Shear wave elastography: Is it a valuable additive method to conventional
ultrasound for the diagnosis of small (≤ 2 cm) breast cancer? Medicine. 2015;94(42):e1540.
7. Mutala TM, Ndaiga P, Aywak A. Comparison of qualitative and semiquantitative strain elastography in breast
lesions for diagnostic accuracy. Cancer Imaging. 2016;16(1):12.
8. Choi HY, Seo M, Sohn Y-M, et al. Shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of small (≤ 2 cm) breast lesions:
Added value and factors associated with false results. The British Journal of Radiology. 2019;92(1097):20180341.
doi:10.1259/bjr.20180341
9. Saleem DS, Al-Najjar SA. Role of strain ratio elastography in suspected malignant breast mass and correlation
with histopathology subtypes. Journal of Pioneering Medical Sciences. 2026;15:114–120.
10. Chang JM, Won J-K, Lee K-B, Park IA, Yi A, Moon WK. Comparison of shear-wave and strain ultrasound
elastography in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology.
2013;201(2):W347–W356. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.10416.
11. Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ. Shear-wave elastography in breast ultrasonography: The state of the art.
Ultrasonography. 2017;36(4):300-309.