Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Real-time ultrasound elastography: an assessment of enlarged cervical lymph nodes

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the efficacy of real-time elastography (RTE), compared with our previously proposed prediction model, in the detection of malignancy in cervical lymph nodes (LNs).

Methods

One hundred and thirty-one patients underwent ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (ultrasound FNAB) after ultrasound and RTE evaluation. The formula of the RTE scoring system was a four-point visual scale, based on a previously determined model. The formula of the prediction model was: \( 0.06\times \left( {\mathrm{age}} \right)+4.76\times \left( {{{{\mathrm{short}-\mathrm{axis}}} \left/ {{\mathrm{long}-\mathrm{axis}\;\mathrm{ratio}}} \right.}} \right)+2.15\times \left( {\mathrm{internal}\;\mathrm{echo}} \right)+1.80\times \left( {\mathrm{vascular}\;\mathrm{pattern}} \right) \). An extended model was constructed with four previous predictors and elasticity scores, using a logistic regression model.

Results

Final histology revealed 77 benign and 54 malignant LNs. In the elasticity score system, sensitivity was 66.7 %, specificity was 57.1 %, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 52.2 % and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 71.0 %. In the prediction model system, sensitivity was 79.6 %, specificity was 92.2 %, the PPV was 87.8 % and the NPV was 86.6 %. When the extended and the original model were compared, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (c-statistic) was 0.94 and 0.95, respectively (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Qualitative RTE offers no additional value over conventional ultrasound in predicting malignancy in cervical LNs.

Key Points

An ultrasound system can help in the assessment of cervical lymph nodes.

Grey-scale and power Doppler ultrasound remain fundamental for neck nodal evaluation.

Qualitative real-time elastography provided no additional value compared with current prediction models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahuja A, Ying M (2002) An overview of neck node sonography. Invest Radiol 37:333–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liao LJ, Wang CT, Young YH, Cheng PW (2010) Real-time and computerized sonographic scoring system for predicting malignant cervical lymphadenopathy. Head Neck 32:594–598

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lyshchik A, Higashi T, Asato R et al (2007) Cervical lymph node metastases: diagnosis at sonoelastography—initial experience. Radiology 243:258–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alam F, Naito K, Horiguchi J, Fukuda H, Tachikake T, Ito K (2008) Accuracy of sonographic elastography in the differential diagnosis of enlarged cervical lymph nodes: comparison with conventional B-mode sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:604–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhatia KS, Cho CC, Yuen YH, Rasalkar DD, King AD, Ahuja AT (2010) Real-time qualitative ultrasound elastography of cervical lymph nodes in routine clinical practice: interobserver agreement and correlation with malignancy. Ultrasound Med Biol 36:1990–1997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tan R, Xiao Y, He Q (2010) Ultrasound elastography: its potential role in assessment of cervical lymphadenopathy. Acad Radiol 17:849–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ying L, Hou Y, Zheng HM, Lin X, Xie ZL, Hu YP (2012) Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant superficial lymph nodes: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 81:2576–2584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shi GH, Wang XM, Ou GC et al (2010) Comparative study of ultrasonic elastography with conventional ultrasonography in cervical lymph nodes [in Chinese]. Chin J Ultrasound Med 26:730–733

    Google Scholar 

  9. Teng DK, Wang H, Lin YQ, Sui GQ, Guo F, Sun LN (2012) Value of ultrasound elastography in assessment of enlarged cervical lymph nodes. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13:2081–2085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lenghel LM, Bolboaca SD, Botar-Jid C, Baciut G, Dudea SM (2012) The value of a new score for sonoelastographic differentiation between benign and malignant cervical lymph nodes. Med Ultrason 14:271–277

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ishibashi N, Yamagata K, Sasaki H et al (2012) Real-time tissue elastography for the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:389–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Steinkamp HJ, Cornehl M, Hosten N, Pegios W, Vogl T, Felix R (1995) Cervical lymphadenopathy: ratio of long- to short-axis diameter as a predictor of malignancy. Br J Radiol 68:266–270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Takashima S, Sone S, Nomura N, Tomiyama N, Kobayashi T, Nakamura H (1997) Nonpalpable lymph nodes of the neck: assessment with US and US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. J Clin Ultrasound 25:283–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rubaltelli L, Proto E, Salmaso R, Bortoletto P, Candiani F, Cagol P (1990) Sonography of abnormal lymph nodes in vitro: correlation of sonographic and histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 155:1241–1244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu CH, Hsu MM, Chang YL, Hsieh FJ (1998) Vascular pathology of malignant cervical lymphadenopathy: qualitative and quantitative assessment with power Doppler ultrasound. Cancer 83:1189–1196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33:363–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McNeil BJ, Hanley JA (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Akobeng A (2007) Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr 96:644–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu M, Chen H, Zheng X, Burstein DE (2011) Evaluation of a scoring system for predicting lymph node malignancy in ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration practice. Diagn Cytopathol. doi:10.1002/dc.21745

    Google Scholar 

  22. Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: developing a prognostic model. BMJ 338:b604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhatia KS, Cho CC, Tong CS, Yuen EH, Ahuja AT (2012) Shear wave elasticity imaging of cervical lymph nodes. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bhatia K, Tong CS, Cho CC, Yuen EH, Lee J, Ahuja AT (2012) Reliability of shear wave ultrasound elastography for neck lesions identified in routine clinical practice. Ultraschall Med 33:463–468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Science Council of the Republic of China (Grant NSC101-2314- B-418-002) and grants from the Far Eastern Memorial Hospital (FEMH-101-2314-B-418-002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li-Jen Liao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lo, WC., Cheng, PW., Wang, CT. et al. Real-time ultrasound elastography: an assessment of enlarged cervical lymph nodes. Eur Radiol 23, 2351–2357 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2861-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2861-7

Keywords

Navigation