Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice >
Ultrasound viscoelastic imaging in differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors
Received date: 2025-01-05
Accepted date: 2025-03-10
Online published: 2025-07-11
Objective To evaluate the application value of ultrasonic viscoelastic imaging technology in differentia-ting benign and malignant breast tumors. Methods A total of 717 patients with breast tumors confirmed by surgical patho-logy were consecutively enrolled at Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine between February 2023 and August 2023, including 471 malignant and 246 benign cases. All patients underwent breast ultrasound examinations before treatment, including grayscale ultrasound, ultrasound strain elastography, ultrasound shear wave elastography, and ultrasound viscoelastic imaging. Ultrasound viscoelastic imaging technology included measuring four sets of parameters of the tumor and its surrounding tissues: viscosity coefficient, dispersion coefficient, shear wave elastic modulus, and strain ratio. Using the optimal predictive indicators from the four parameter groups, multiple prediction models were established, including single-variable models (viscosity coefficient, dispersion coefficient, shear wave, strain), a combined viscoelastic model (Shell/T-Vmean + Shell/T-Dmean), a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) model, and a combined model integrating BI-RADS with viscoelastic parameters. The effectiveness of each model in differentiating benign and malignant breast tumors was evaluated. Results Parameters including viscosity coefficient, dispersion coefficient, elastic modulus, and strain ratio from ultrasound viscoelastic imaging could effectively distinguish benign and malignant breast tumors. Among them, the ratios of the tumor margin (2 mm region) to the tumor itself—Shell/T-Vmean, Shell/T-Dmean, Shell/T-Emean, and Strain Ratio A—were optimal predictive indicators, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.742, 0.745, 0.726, and 0.705, respectively. The BI-RADS model for predicting benign and malignant breast tumors achieved an AUC of 0.822. When Shell/T-Vmean and Shell/T-Dmean were respectively combined with BI-RADS classification, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve's AUC reached 0.895 (95% CI: 0.868–0.917), which was higher than that of BI-RADS alone. Conclusion Among the viscoelastic parameters of ultrasound viscoelastic imaging, the average ratios of viscosity coefficient, dispersion coefficient, and elastic modulus between the 2 mm tumor margin region and the tumor body are key diagnostic indicators. The combination of Shell/T-Vmean and Shell/T-Dmean with BI-RADS provides a new stra-tegy for noninvasive preoperative precision diagnosis.
QIN Yu , LI Cheng , HUA Qing , ZHANG Huiting , JIA Wanru , DONG Yijie , ZHOU Jianqiao , XIA Shujun . Ultrasound viscoelastic imaging in differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors[J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2025 , 24(02) : 194 -203 . DOI: 10.16150/j.1671-2870.2025.02.011
| [1] | SUNG H, FERLAY J, SIEGEL R L, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249. |
| [2] | CHEN W, ZHENG R, BAADE P D, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2016, 66(2): 115-132. |
| [3] | FELDMANN A, LANGLOIS C, DEWAILLY M, et al. Shear wave elastography (SWE): an analysis of breast lesion characterization in 83 breast lesions[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2015, 41(10): 2594-2604. |
| [4] | RICCI P, MAGGINI E, MANCUSO E, et al. Clinical application of breast elastography: state of the art[J]. Eur J Radiol,2014, 83(3): 429-37. |
| [5] | SIGRIST R M S, LIAU J, KAFFAS A E, et al. Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications[J]. Theranostics, 2017, 7(5): 1303-1329. |
| [6] | SHIINA T, NIGHTINGALE K R, PALMERI M L, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 1: basic principles and terminology[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol,2015,41(5):1126-1147. |
| [7] | KUMAR V, DENIS M, GREGORY A, et al. Viscoelastic parameters as discriminators of breast masses: Initial human study results[J]. PLoS One, 2018,13(10): e0205717. |
| [8] | LI W, JIANG J, CAO J, et al. The value of ultrasound viscosity imaging in preoperative differential diagnosis between malignant and benign breast lesions: Preliminary clinical applications[J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc,2025,89(1):111-122. |
| [9] | American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system[M].5th ed, Reston, Virginia, 2013. |
| [10] | JIA W, XIA S, JIA X, et al. Ultrasound Viscosity Imaging in Breast Lesions: A Multicenter Prospective Study[J]. Acad Radiol, 2024, 31(9): 3499-510. |
| [11] | MANDUCA A, BAYLY P J, EHMAN R L, et al. MR elastography: Principles, guidelines, and terminology[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2021, 85(5): 2377-2390. |
| [12] | SHI Y, QI Y F, LAN G Y, et al. Three-dimensional MR elastography depicts liver inflammation, fibrosis, and portal hypertension in chronic hepatitis B or C[J]. Radio-logy, 2021, 301(1): 154-162. |
| [13] | TAPPER E B, LOOMBA R. Noninvasive imaging biomarker assessment of liver fibrosis by elastography in NAFLD[J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol,2018,15(5): 274-282. |
| [14] | PATEL B K, SAMREEN N, ZHOU Y, et al. MR elastography of the breast: evolution of technique, case examples, and future directions[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2021,21(1): e102-e111. |
| [15] | CHEN S, SANCHEZ W, CALLSTROM M R, et al. Assessment of liver viscoelasticity by using shear waves induced by ultrasound radiation force[J]. Radiology, 2013, 266(3): 964-970. |
| [16] | SUGIMOTO K, MORIYASU F, OSHIRO H, et al. The role of multiparametric US of the liver for the evaluation of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis[J]. Radiology,2020, 296(3): 532-540. |
| [17] | LEE D H, LEE J Y, BAE J S, et al. Shear-wave dispersion slope from US shear-wave elastography: detection of allograft damage after liver transplantation[J]. Radiology, 2019,293(2): 327-333. |
| [18] | HOSSAIN M M, SELZO M R, HINSON R M, et al. Evaluating renal transplant status using viscoelastic response (VisR) Ultrasound[J]. Utrasound Med Biol, 2018, 44(8): 1573-1584. |
| [19] | SADIGH G, CARLOS R C, NEAL C H, et al. Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound elastography for differentiation of malignant and benign breast abnormalities: a meta-analysis[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat,2012,134(3): 923-931. |
| [20] | BERG W A, COSGROVE D O, DORé C J, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses [J]. Radiology, 2012, 262(2): 435-449. |
| [21] | ZHANG H, GUO Y, ZHOU Y, et al. Fluidity and elasticity form a concise set of viscoelastic biomarkers for breast cancer diagnosis based on Kelvin-Voigt fractional derivative modeling[J]. Biomech Model Mechanobiol,2020,19(6): 2163-2177. |
| [22] | MIERKE C T. Viscoelasticity acts as a marker for tumor extracellular matrix characteristics[J]. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2021, 9: 785138. |
| [23] | ZHOU J, ZHAN W, CHANG C, et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with shear wave elastography, with special emphasis on the "stiff rim" sign[J]. Radiology,2014,272(1): 63-72. |
| [24] | PARK H S, SHIN H J, SHIN K C, et al. Comparison of peritumoral stromal tissue stiffness obtained by shear wave elastography between benign and malignant breast lesions[J]. Acta Radiol,2018,59(10): 1168-1175. |
| [25] | 王艳萍, 唐笛娇, 努尔比耶·买买提依力, 等. 血清抗着丝粒蛋白F抗体在乳腺癌中的临床价值探讨 [J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2024, 49 (9): 1188-1192. |
| WANG Y P, TANG D J, NUERBIYE·M, et al. Clinical value of serum anti-centromere protein F antibody in breast cancer[J]. J Chongqing Med Univ,2024,49(9): 1188-1192. | |
| [26] | SRIDHAR M, INSANA M F. Ultrasonic measurements of breast viscoelasticity[J]. Med Phys,2007,34(12): 4757-4767. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |