Ultrasound elastography, especially strain elastography, has become an increasingly valuable tool in medical diagnostics, particularly for characterizing breast lesions. This technique, often used in conjunction with conventional grayscale ultrasonography, enhances diagnostic accuracy by providing additional information about tissue stiffness. This article delves into strain elastography, comparing its methodology, benefits, and diagnostic performance in differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions, drawing upon existing research to provide a comprehensive overview.
Strain elastography operates on the principle that malignant tissues are typically stiffer than benign tissues. By applying a slight compression to the tissue and observing its deformation under ultrasound, strain elastography can generate images that reflect tissue elasticity. This qualitative assessment is often visually represented as color-coded elastograms, where different colors correspond to varying degrees of tissue stiffness. While strain elastography primarily offers qualitative data, semi-quantitative analysis can be achieved through strain ratios. This involves comparing the strain of a lesion to that of adjacent normal tissue, yielding a ratio that can aid in distinguishing lesion characteristics. Studies have indicated that benign lesions tend to exhibit lower strain ratios compared to their malignant counterparts, reflecting their relative softness.
Research consistently demonstrates the enhanced diagnostic capabilities of combining grayscale ultrasonography with elastography. Parajuly et al. (2010) documented the superior diagnostic accuracy of combined use, highlighting its potential in improving breast cancer detection. Strain elastography’s ability to visualize stiffness contrasts directly contributes to this enhanced accuracy. Benign lesions, which may show reduced visibility on elastograms, differ markedly from malignant lesions, which become more prominent due to their increased stiffness relative to surrounding normal tissue. This contrast is a key factor in improving diagnostic confidence.
Fleury et al. (2009) investigated the efficacy of ultrasound elastography in differentiating breast lesions, achieving a high diagnostic accuracy of 94.7%, with a specificity of 95.9% and a positive predictive value of 76.5%. Their findings underscore the value of elastography classification as a significant adjunct to B-mode evaluation in distinguishing between benign and malignant breast lesions. Similarly, a preliminary study in China by Parajuly et al. (2010) found that ultrasound elastography surpassed B-mode sonography in diagnostic metrics such as accuracy (95.8% vs 90.6%), sensitivity (98.6% vs 91.4%), and specificity (96.0% vs 90.0%), further solidifying its role in breast cancer detection.
While strain elastography is a valuable tool, it’s important to compare its performance with other elastography techniques, such as shear wave elastography. Evans et al. (2012) assessed shear wave elastography in combination with the BI-RADS classification of grayscale images, revealing that this combination provided superior sensitivity compared to BI-RADS alone. Although their study focused on shear wave elastography, it underscores the general benefit of elastographic techniques in breast lesion characterization. It’s worth noting that while shear wave elastography quantifies tissue stiffness in kilopascals (kPa), strain elastography, particularly qualitative strain elastography, offers a more subjective, visually interpreted assessment of tissue strain.
Studies conducted in Africa have also contributed to the body of evidence supporting strain elastography. Aly et al. (2009) in Egypt reported high sensitivity (87.2%), specificity (90.6%), and accuracy (90%) for strain elastography in distinguishing breast lesions. These results, while slightly lower than some other studies, still affirm the clinical utility of the technique. Interestingly, the original study from which this discussion stems demonstrated even higher sensitivity and specificity, potentially attributable to advancements in ultrasonic technology over time.
The clinical utility of strain elastography extends to the evaluation of equivocal lesions identified on grayscale ultrasound. For lesions categorized as BI-RADS 4c, 5, or even 2 based on grayscale imaging, elastography may offer additional information to refine diagnosis. In some cases, elastography can lead to the “upgrading” or “downgrading” of lesion suspicion, influencing clinical management decisions. Giuseppetti et al. (2005) suggested that qualitative shear-wave elastography, alongside color assessment of stiffness, shape, and maximum elasticity value, could reduce unnecessary biopsies for low-suspicion BI-RADS 4A masses without compromising sensitivity.
Despite its strengths, strain elastography is not without limitations. Operator dependence is a recognized challenge, particularly with the strain method, as the quality of the elastogram can be influenced by the operator’s technique in applying compression. To mitigate this, training, standardized protocols, and consensus reviews among trained teams are crucial, as highlighted in the methodologies of various studies. Furthermore, a learning curve is associated with mastering breast ultrasound elastography, with recommendations suggesting at least 30 supervised examinations to achieve competence.
Lesion characteristics such as depth and size can also impact diagnostic accuracy. Some guidelines suggest that lesions exceeding 3 cm in diameter may be more challenging to evaluate with elastography. However, the original study’s findings indicated that even larger masses did not necessarily compromise diagnostic performance, suggesting that technological advancements and operator expertise can overcome some of these limitations. False positives, as observed in the study, can occur in post-mastectomy scar tissue and granulomatous mastitis, due to the increased stiffness associated with these conditions, underscoring the importance of clinical context in interpretation.
Comparing strain score and strain ratio, Parajuly et al. (2012) found strain ratio to have superior diagnostic performance. However, the original study did not establish a statistically significant difference between these two methods in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. A significant challenge in utilizing strain ratio is the lack of a universally accepted cut-off value for benignity versus malignancy. Future research directions could explore clustering strain ratio values to align with BI-RADS categories, potentially mirroring the established strain score categorization system. Further research and data accumulation are encouraged to build robust databases for meta-analytic studies and to refine the application of strain elastography in clinical practice.
In conclusion, strain elastography, particularly when integrated with grayscale ultrasound, significantly enhances the diagnostic confidence in categorizing breast lesions, especially within BI-RADS category 3. It offers a valuable contribution to reducing unnecessary biopsies and improving patient care. While operator dependence and lesion characteristics require careful consideration, ongoing research and technological advancements continue to refine and expand the clinical utility of strain elastography in breast lesion diagnosis.
References
[10] Parajuly SS, Lan PY, Yan L, Gang YZ, Lin L. Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11:809–14.
[11] Schaefer FKW, Heer I, Schaefer PJ, et al. Breast ultrasound elastography–results of 193 breast lesions in a prospective study with histopathologic correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77(3):450–6.
[12] Zhao QL, Ruan LT, Zhang H, et al. Diagnosis of solid breast lesions by elastography 5-point score and strain ratio method. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):3245–9.
[13] Stachs A, Hartmann S, Stubert J, et al. Differentiating between malignant and benign breast masses: factors limiting sonoelastographic strain ratio. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34(2):131–6.
[14] Fleury EC, Fleury JV, Piato S, et al. New elastographic classification of breast lesions during and after compression. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2009;15(2):96–103.
[15] Parajuly SS, Lan PY, Yan L, et al. Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11(3):809–14.
[16] Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with greyscale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(2):224–9.
[17] Aly AM, Helal MH, Shabana AM, et al. Role of Sonoelastography in the Differentiation between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2010;22(2):135–42.
[18] Giuseppetti GM, Martegani A, Di Cioccio B, Baldassarre S. Elastosonography in the diagnosis of the nodular breast lesions: preliminary report. Radiol Med. 2005;110:69–76
[19] Rizzato G. Real-time elastograhy of the breast in clinical practice-the Italian experience. Medix Hitachi Supplement 2007; 12–15.
[20] Institute of Advanced Medical Education. Breast elastography: Principles of Strain and Shear-Wave Elastography. Online CME. Accessed 19 Apr 2016.
[21] Parajuly SS, Lan PY, Yun MB, Gang YZ, Hua Z. Diagnostic potential of strain ratio measurement and a 5 point scoring method for detection of breast cancer: Chinese experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(4):1447–52.
