Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31032186›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2019

Diagnostic performance of qualitative and quantitative shear wave elastography in differentiating malignant from benign breast masses, and association with the histological prognostic factors.

Voraparee Suvannarerg, Piyanuch Chitchumnong, Wipawan Apiwat, Lassanun Lertdamrongdej, Nattinee Tretipwanit, Pongthep Pisarnturakit, Panitta Sitthinamsuwan, Shanigarn Thiravit, Kobkun Muangsomboon, Pornpim Korpraphong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Voraparee Suvannarerg1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Piyanuch Chitchumnong1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wipawan Apiwat1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lassanun Lertdamrongdej1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nattinee Tretipwanit1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pongthep Pisarnturakit1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panitta Sitthinamsuwan1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Shanigarn Thiravit1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kobkun Muangsomboon1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pornpim Korpraphong1Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, 2Thanyarak Breast Center, 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, 4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo determine the diagnostic performance of qualitative and quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) and the optimal cutoff values of the quantitative SWE parameters in differentiating malignant from benign breast masses, and to evaluate the association between the quantitative SWE parameters and histological prognostic factors.

methodsA gray scale ultrasound and SWE were prospectively performed on a total of 244 breast masses (148 benign, and 96 malignant) in 228 consecutive patients before an ultrasound-guided needle biopsy. The qualitative SWE and quantitative SWE parameters (the mean elasticity, maximum elasticity, and elasticity ratio) were measured in each mass. The diagnostic performance of SWE and the optimal cutoff values of the quantitative SWE parameters were obtained. An association analysis of the parameters and histological prognostic factors was performed.

resultsThe malignant masses had a more heterogeneous pattern on the qualitative SWE than benign masses (P<0.001). The quantitative SWE parameters of the malignant masses were higher than those of the benign masses (P<0.001); the mean elasticity, maximum elasticity, and elasticity ratio of the benign masses were 19.73 kPa, 23.98 kPa, and 2.78, respectively; and the mean elasticity, maximum elasticity, and elasticity ratio of the malignant masses were 88.13 kPa, 98.48 kPa, and 10.64, respectively. The optimal cutoff value of the mean elasticity was 30 kPa, of the maximum elasticity was 36 kPa, and of the elasticity ratio was 4.5. The maximum elasticity had the highest AUC. Combining the three SWE parameters to differentiate between the malignant and benign masses increased the negative predictive value (NPV), which correctly downgraded 72.73% of BI-RADS category 4A masses to BI-RADS category 3. No statistically significant association was found between the quantitative SWE parameters and the tumor grading, tumor types, axillary lymph node statuses, or molecular subtypes of the breast cancers (P>0.05).

conclusionsThe qualitative and quantitative SWE provided good diagnostic performance in differentiating malignant and benign masses. The maximum elasticity of the quantitative SWE parameters had the best diagnostic performance. Adding the three combined quantitative SWE parameters to the BI-RADS category 4A masses potentially downgraded them to BI-RADS category 3 and avoided unnecessary biopsies. No statistically significant association was found between the quantitative SWE parameters and the histological prognostic factors.

Indexed as

breast cancerShear wave elastography (SWE)ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID31032186
PMCPMC6462575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.