ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018
Further characterization of changes in axial strain elastograms due to the presence of slippery tumor boundaries.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phantoms for use in optical coherence elastography.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Review
- The pulsing brain: state of the art and an interdisciplinary perspective.Interface focus · 2025Review
- Intraoperative ultrasound in spine surgery: history, current applications, future developments.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Elastography measures tissue strain, which can be interpreted under certain simplifying assumptions to be representative of the underlying stiffness distribution. This is useful in cancer diagnosis where tumors tend to have a different stiffness to healthy tissue and has also shown potential to provide indication of the degree of bonding at tumor-tissue boundaries, which is clinically useful because of its dependence on tumor pathology. We consider the changes in axial strain for the case of a symmetrical model undergoing uniaxial compression, studied by characterizing changes in tumor contrast transfer efficiency (CTE), inclusion to background strain contrast and strain contrast generated by slip motion, as a function of Young's modulus contrast and applied strain. We present results from a finite element simulation and an evaluation of these results using tissue-mimicking phantoms. The simulation results show that a discontinuity in displacement data at the tumor boundary, caused by the surrounding tissue slipping past the tumor, creates a halo of "pseudostrain" across the tumor boundary. Mobile tumors also appear stiffer on elastograms than adhered tumors, to the extent that tumors that have the same Young's modulus as the background may in fact be visible as low-strain regions, or those that are softer than the background may appear to be stiffer than the background. Tumor mobility also causes characteristic strain heterogeneity within the tumor, which exhibits low strain close to the slippery boundary and increasing strain toward the center of the tumor. These results were reproduced in phantom experiments. In addition, phantom experiments demonstrated that when fluid lubrication is present at the boundary, these effects become applied strain-dependent as well as modulus-dependent, in a systematic and characteristic manner. The knowledge generated by this study is expected to aid interpretation of clinical strain elastograms by helping to avoid misinterpretation as well as provide additional diagnostic criteria stated in the paper and stimulate further research into the application of elastography to tumor mobility assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.