| ObjectiveTo study the diagnostic value of ultrasonic elastography in benign and malignant breast solid masses identification.MethodsSixty-four female patients with105breast solid masses were examined between April2013and October2013in the First People’s Hospital of Yangzhou. The typical cystic masses and the cystic-based mixed tumors were excluded. All patients were scheduled for operation. Patient age ranged from20to80years, with a mean of45years. All US examinations were performed with a Esaote MyLabTM Twice unit (Esaote SpA, Genoa, Italy) and a linear probe (LA523). All lesions were evaluated separately by conventional ultrasound, elastography and combined conventional ultrasound with elastography. Ultrasound assessment was based on the BIRADS classification, whereas elastographic assessment was based on strain ratio and area ratio. Histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of each technique were compared.ResultsSeventy-six tumors were benign and29tumors were malignant. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV were81.90%,65.52%,88.16%,67.86%and87.01%, respectively, for conventional ultrasound,85.71%,75.86%,89.47%,73.33%and90.67%, respectively, for elastography with3.08as cutoff value of SR, and86.67%,93.10%,84.21%,69.23%and96.97%, respectively, for combined imaging. The sensitivity of conventional ultrasound combined with SR was significantly higher than that of conventional ultrasound (P<0.05). The AUCs of conventional ultrasound, SR, AR, conventional ultrasound combined with SR were0.768,0.827,0.809and0.887, respectively. The AUC of conventional ultrasound combined with SR was significantly higher than that of conventional ultrasound (P<0.01).ConclusionThis initial experience with ultrasound breast elastography showed that it was more sensitive than conventional ultrasound. A combination of conventional ultrasound and elastography can improve the diagnostic sensitivity of malignant masses. |
PDF Full Text Request