Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 51 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 547 - 554 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.3906/sag-2006-257 İndeks Tarihi: 21-01-2022

Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions

Öz:
Background/aim: Strain elastography has the disadvantage of being operator-dependent. Interobserver variability is observed during image acquisition and interpretation. This study aimed to analyze the interobserver and intermethod variability of strain elastography in image interpretation and evaluate the diagnostic performance combining elasticity score and strain ratio with ultrasonography. Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 70 breast lesions evaluated with B-mode ultrasonography and strain elastography. B-mode ultrasonography findings, elasticity scores, and strain ratio values were evaluated using static images by two radiologists. BI-RADS assessment of the lesions and the decision of both observers as to whether the biopsy was required using B-mode ultrasonography, and the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score, and the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score+strain ratio were compared with the histopathological results. Also, the interobserver agreement was analyzed for all the combinations. Results: There was very good agreement (weighted κ = 0.865) between the observers for the elasticity scores. Very good agreement was observed between the observers for BI-RADS assessments using the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score and the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score+strain ratio (weighted κ = 0.848, and 0.902, respectively). Area under the curve of B-mode ultrasonography, the combined B-mode ultrasonography+elasticity score, and the combined B-mode ultrasonography+elasticity score+strain ratio, were calculated as 0.859, 0.866, and 0.916 for observer 1, and 0.851, 0.829, and 0.916 for observer 2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the observers’ diagnostic performances in any of the combinations (P = 0.703, 0.067, and 0.972, respectively). Conclusion: In the evaluation and further assessment of breast lesions, semiquantitative strain ratio calculation may help improve diagnostic accuracy by reducing interpretational variety, when used together with B-mode ultrasonography and elasticity scoring, especially for inexperienced individuals.Key words: Breast, elasticity score, interobserver variability, intermethod variability, strain elastography, strain ratio
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006; 239 (2): 341-350. doi: 10.1148/ radiol.2391041676
  • 2. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticlity of biological tissues. Ultrasonic Imaging 1991; 13 (2): 111-134. doi: 10.1177/016173469101300201
  • 3. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Weber S, Thomas A, Fischer T et al. Multicenter study of ultrasound real-time tissue elastography in 779 cases for the assessment of breast lesions: improved diagnostic performance by combining the BI-RADS®-US classification system with sonoelastography. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2010; 31 (5): 484-491. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245282
  • 4. Ricci P, Maggini E, Mancuso E, Lodise P, Cantisani V et al. Clinical application of breast elastography: state of the art. European Journal of Radiology 2014; 83 (3): 429-437. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.05.007
  • 5. Kim HJ, Kim SM, Kim B, La Yun B, Jang M et al. Comparison of strain and shear wave elastography for qualitative and quantitative assessment of breast masses in the same population. Scientific Reports 2018; 8 (1): 6197. doi: 10.1038/ s41598-018-24377-0
  • 6. Cho N, Moon WK, Kim HY, Chang JM, Park SH et al. Sonoelastographic strain index for differentiation of benign and malignant nonpalpable breast masses. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2010; 29 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.1.1
  • 7. Ciurea AI, Bolboaca SD, Ciortea CA, Botar-Jid C, Dudea SM. The influence of technical factors on sonoelastographic assessment of solid breast nodules. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2011; 32 Suppl 1: 27-34. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245684
  • 8. Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM, Hesley GK, Sisney GA et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology 2007; 245 (2): 401-410. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2452061805
  • 9. Fleury Ede F, Fleury JC, Piato S, Roveda D Jr. New elastographic classification of breast lesions during and after compression. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 2009; 15 (2): 96-103.
  • 10. Yoon JH, Kim MH, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Kwak JY et al. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography: how it affects the diagnosis of breast lesions. American Journal of Roentgenology 2011; 196 (3): 730-736. doi: 10.2214/ AJR.10.4654
  • 11. Leong LC, Sim LS, Lee YS, Ng FC, Wan CM et al. A prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional breast ultrasound. Clinical Radiology 2010; 65 (11): 887-894. doi: 10.1016/j. crad.2010.06.008
  • 12. Regner DM, Hesley GK, Hangiandreou NJ, Morton MJ, Nordland MR et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging–clinical experience of multiple observers. Radiology 2006; 238 (2): 425-437. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2381041336
  • 13. Schaefer I, Heer PJ, Schaefer C, Mundhenke S, Osterholz BM et al. Breast ultrasound elastography–results of 193 breast lesions in a prospective study with histopathologic correlation. European Journal of Radiology 2011; 77 (3): 450-456. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.08.026
  • 14. Cho N, Jang M, Lyou CY, Park JS, Choi HY et al. Distinguishing benign from malignant masses at breast US: combined US elastography and color doppler US influence on radiologist accuracy. Radiology 2012; 262 (1): 80-90. doi: 10.1148/ radiol.11110886
  • 15. Park CS, Kim SH, Jung NY, Choi JJ, Kang BJ et al. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography and the ultrasound BIRADS lexicon of breast lesions. Breast Cancer 2015; 22 (2): 153-160. doi: 10.1007/s12282-013-0465-3
  • 16. Cho N, Moon WK, Chang JM, Yi A, Koo HR et al. Sonoelastographic lesion stiffness: preoperative predictor of the presence of an invasive focus in nonpalpable DCIS diagnosed at US-guided needle biopsy. European Radiology 2011; 21 (8): 1618-1627. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2103-9
  • 17. Thomas T, Fischer H, Frey R, Ohlinger S, Grunwald JU et al. Real-time elastography–an advanced method of ultrasound: first results in 108 patients with breast lesions. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006; 28 (3): 335-340. doi: 10.1002/ uog.2823
  • 18. Kim JY, Shin JK, Lee SH. The breast tumor strain ratio is a predictive parameter for axillary lymph node metastasis in patients with invasive breast cancer. American Journal of Roentgenology 2015; 205 (6): 630-638. doi: 10.2214/ AJR.14.14269
  • 19. Zhi H, Xiao XY, Yang HY, Wen YL, Ou B et al. Semi-quantitating stiffness of breast solid lesions in ultrasonic elastography. Academic Radiology 2008; 15 (11): 1347-1353. doi: 10.1016/j. acra.2008.08.003
  • 20. Zhao XB, Yao JY, Zhou XC, Hao SY, Mu WJ et al. Strain elastography: a valuable additional method to BIRADS? Ultraschall in der Medizin 2018; 39 (5): 526-534. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-115108
  • 21. Alhabshi SM, Rahmat K, Abdul Halim N, Aziz S, Radhika S et al. Semi-quantitative and qualitative assessment of breast ultrasound elastography in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2013; 39 (4): 568-578. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.10.016
  • 22. Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Slowinski T et al. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Academic Radiology 2010; 17 (5): 558-563. doi: 10.1016/j. acra.2009.12.006
  • 23. Fujioka T, Mori M, Kubota K, Kikuchi Y, Katsuta L et al. Simultaneous comparison between strain and shear wave elastography of breast masses for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions by qualitative and quantitative assessment. Breast Cancer 2019; 26 (6): 792-798. doi: 10.1007/ s12282-019-00985-0
  • 24. Chang JM, Won JK, Lee KB, Park IA, Yi A et al. Comparison of shear-wave and strain ultrasound elastography in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. American Journal of Roentgenology 2013; 201 (2): 347-356. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10416
  • 25. Youk JH, Son EJ, Gweon HM, Kim H, Park YJ et al. Comparison of strain and shear wave elastography for the differentiation of benign from malignant breast lesions, combined with B-mode ultrasonography: qualitative and quantitative assessments. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2014; 40 (10): 2336-2344. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.05.020
  • 26. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 5th ed. Reston, VA USA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
  • 27. Arslan S, Uslu N, Öztürk FU, Akçay EY, Tezcaner T et al. Can strain elastography combined with ultrasound breast imaging reporting and data system be a more effective method in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions? Journal of Medical Ultrasonics 2001; 2017; 44 (4): 289- 296. doi: 10.1007/s10396-017-0772-y
  • 28. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
  • 29. Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Cha JH, Jang M et al. Nonpalpable breast masses: evaluation by US elastography. Korean Journal of Radiology 2008; 9 (2): 111-118. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2008.9.2.111
  • 30. Scaperrotta G, Ferranti C, Costa C, Mariani L, Marchesini M et al. Role of sonoelastography in non-palpable breast lesions. European Radiology 2008; 18 (11): 2381-2389. doi: 10.1007/ s00330-008-1032-8
  • 31. Lee SH, Chang JM, Cho N, Koo HR, Yi A et al. Korean Breast Elastography Study, Practice guideline for the performance of breast ultrasound elastography. Ultrasonography 2014; 33 (1): 3-10. doi: 10.14366/usg.13012
  • 32. Dong YJ, Zhou C, Zhou JQ, Yang ZF, Zhang JW et al. Breast strain elastography: observer variability in data acquisition and interpretation. European Journal of Radiology 2018; 101: 157- 161. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.02.025
  • 33. Schwab F, Redling K, Siebert M, Schötzau A, Schoenenberger CA et al. Inter- and intra-observer agreement in ultrasound BI-RADS classification and real-time eastography Tsukuba score assessment of breast lesions. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2016; 42 (11): 2622-2629. doi: 10.1016/j. ultrasmedbio.2016.06.017
  • 34. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Training the ACRIN 6666 Investigators and effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS ultrasound feature analysis. American Journal of Roentgenology 2012; 199 (1): 224-235. doi: 10.2214/ AJR.11.7324
  • 35. Bojanic K, Katavic N, Smolic M, Peric M, Kralik K et al. Implementation of elastography score and strain ratio in combination with B-Mode ultrasound avoids unnecessary biopsies of breast lesions. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2017; 43 (4): 804-816. doi: 10.1016/j. ultrasmedbio.2016.11.019
  • 36. Barr RG. Sonographic breast elastography: a primer. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2012; 31 (5): 773-783. doi: 10.7863/ jum.2012.31.5.773
  • 37. Yerli H, Yılmaz T, Kaskatı T, Gulay H. Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations of solid breast lesions by sonoelastography. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2011; 30 (2): 179-186. doi: 10.7863/jum.2011.30.2.179
APA Turnaoglu H, Haberal K, Arslan S, yavuz çolak m, Ulu Öztürk F, Uslu N (2021). Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. , 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
Chicago Turnaoglu Hale,Haberal Kemal Murat,Arslan Serdar,yavuz çolak meriç,Ulu Öztürk Funda,Uslu Nihal Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. (2021): 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
MLA Turnaoglu Hale,Haberal Kemal Murat,Arslan Serdar,yavuz çolak meriç,Ulu Öztürk Funda,Uslu Nihal Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. , 2021, ss.547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
AMA Turnaoglu H,Haberal K,Arslan S,yavuz çolak m,Ulu Öztürk F,Uslu N Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. . 2021; 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
Vancouver Turnaoglu H,Haberal K,Arslan S,yavuz çolak m,Ulu Öztürk F,Uslu N Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. . 2021; 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
IEEE Turnaoglu H,Haberal K,Arslan S,yavuz çolak m,Ulu Öztürk F,Uslu N "Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions." , ss.547 - 554, 2021. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
ISNAD Turnaoglu, Hale vd. "Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions". (2021), 547-554. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-2006-257
APA Turnaoglu H, Haberal K, Arslan S, yavuz çolak m, Ulu Öztürk F, Uslu N (2021). Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 51(2), 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
Chicago Turnaoglu Hale,Haberal Kemal Murat,Arslan Serdar,yavuz çolak meriç,Ulu Öztürk Funda,Uslu Nihal Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 51, no.2 (2021): 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
MLA Turnaoglu Hale,Haberal Kemal Murat,Arslan Serdar,yavuz çolak meriç,Ulu Öztürk Funda,Uslu Nihal Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, vol.51, no.2, 2021, ss.547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
AMA Turnaoglu H,Haberal K,Arslan S,yavuz çolak m,Ulu Öztürk F,Uslu N Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2021; 51(2): 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
Vancouver Turnaoglu H,Haberal K,Arslan S,yavuz çolak m,Ulu Öztürk F,Uslu N Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2021; 51(2): 547 - 554. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
IEEE Turnaoglu H,Haberal K,Arslan S,yavuz çolak m,Ulu Öztürk F,Uslu N "Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions." Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 51, ss.547 - 554, 2021. 10.3906/sag-2006-257
ISNAD Turnaoglu, Hale vd. "Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions". Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 51/2 (2021), 547-554. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-2006-257