Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 376–385 | Cite as

Superficial ultrasound shear wave speed measurements in soft and hard elasticity phantoms: repeatability and reproducibility using two ultrasound systems

  • Jonathan R. DillmanEmail author
  • Shigao Chen
  • Matthew S. Davenport
  • Heng Zhao
  • Matthew W. Urban
  • Pengfei Song
  • Kuanwong Watcharotone
  • Paul L. Carson
Original Article

Abstract

Background

There is a paucity of data available regarding the repeatability and reproducibility of superficial shear wave speed (SWS) measurements at imaging depths relevant to the pediatric population.

Objective

To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of superficial shear wave speed measurements acquired from elasticity phantoms at varying imaging depths using three imaging methods, two US systems and multiple operators.

Materials and methods

Soft and hard elasticity phantoms manufactured by Computerized Imaging Reference Systems Inc. (Norfolk, VA) were utilized for our investigation. Institution No. 1 used an Acuson S3000 US system (Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Malvern, PA) and three shear wave imaging method/transducer combinations, while institution No. 2 used an Aixplorer US system (SuperSonic Imagine, Bothell, WA) and two different transducers. Ten stiffness measurements were acquired from each phantom at three depths (1.0 cm, 2.5 cm and 4.0 cm) by four operators at each institution. Student’s t-test was used to compare SWS measurements between imaging techniques, while SWS measurement agreement was assessed with two-way random effects single-measure intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficients of variation. Mixed model regression analysis determined the effect of predictor variables on SWS measurements.

Results

For the soft phantom, the average of mean SWS measurements across the various imaging methods and depths was 0.84 ± 0.04 m/s (mean ± standard deviation) for the Acuson S3000 system and 0.90 ± 0.02 m/s for the Aixplorer system (P = 0.003). For the hard phantom, the average of mean SWS measurements across the various imaging methods and depths was 2.14 ± 0.08 m/s for the Acuson S3000 system and 2.07 ± 0.03 m/s Aixplorer system (P > 0.05). The coefficients of variation were low (0.5–6.8%), and interoperator agreement was near-perfect (ICCs ≥ 0.99). Shear wave imaging method and imaging depth significantly affected measured SWS (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Superficial shear wave speed measurements in elasticity phantoms demonstrate minimal variability across imaging method/transducer combinations, imaging depths and operators. The exact clinical significance of this variation is uncertain and may change according to organ and specific disease state.

Keywords

Shear wave elastography Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) Shear wave speed Elasticity phantom Reproducibility Repeatability Measurement Ultrasound 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is an extension of a study performed by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) that is directed toward unifying the quantification of shear wave speed and tissue elastic modulus across different US and MRI platforms [13]. The elasticity phantoms used in this study were manufactured and donated by Computerized Imaging Reference Systems Inc. (Norfolk, VA) for the QIBA study through the efforts of Ted Lynch, PhD.

This investigation was supported in part by grants numbered 2UL1TR000433 and DK082408 of the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

We would also like to acknowledge Mr. Eric D. Larson and Dr. Xiaofang Lu, of the University of Michigan, for assistance obtaining the US shear wave speed measurements used in this investigation.

Conflicts of interest

An ultrasound imaging system used in this study was provided to Dr. Dillman by Siemens Medical Solutions USA for a separate investigator-initiated investigation.

References

  1. 1.
    Nightingale K (2011) Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging: a review. Curr Med Imaging Rev 7:328–339CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palmeri ML, Nightingale KR (2011) Acoustic radiation force-based elasticity imaging methods. Interface Focus 1:553–564CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doherty JR, Trahey GE, Nightingale KR et al (2013) Acoustic radiation force elasticity imaging in diagnostic ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 60:685–701CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarvazyan AP, Rudenko OV, Swanson SD et al (1998) Shear wave elasticity imaging: a new ultrasonic technology of medical diagnostics. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:1419–1435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sarvazyan A, Hall TJ, Urban MW et al (2011) An overview of elastography — an emerging branch of medical imaging. Curr Med Imaging Rev 7:255–282CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serai SD, Towbin AJ, Podberesky DJ (2012) Pediatric liver MR elastography. Dig Dis Sci 57:2713–2719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Binkovitz LA, El-Youssef M, Glaser KJ et al (2012) Pediatric MR elastography of hepatic fibrosis: principles, technique and early clinical experience. Pediatr Radiol 42:402–409CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fontanilla T, Cañas T, Macia A et al (2014) Normal values of liver shear wave velocity in healthy children assessed by acoustic radiation force impulse imaging using a convex probe and a linear probe. Ultrasound Med Biol 40:470–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanquinet S, Rougemont AL, Courvoisier D et al (2013) Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography for the noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis in children. Pediatr Radiol 43:545–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marginean CO, Marginean C (2012) Elastographic assessment of liver fibrosis in children: a prospective single center experience. Eur J Radiol 81:e870–e874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kutty SS, Peng Q, Danford DA et al (2014) Increased hepatic stiffness as consequence of high hepatic afterload in the fontan circulation: a vascular Doppler and elastography study. Hepatology 59:251–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruno C, Caliari G, Zaffanello M et al (2013) Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) in the evaluation of the renal parenchymal stiffness in paediatric patients with vesicoureteral reflux: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 23:3477–3484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milkowski A, Garra BS, Hall TJ et al (2013) Ultrasound shear wave speed (SWS) estimation in elastic phantoms: sources and magnitude of variability in a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) multicenter study. Radiological Society of North America, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall TJ, Milkowski A, Garra B et al (2013) RSNA/QIBA: shear wave speed as a biomarker for liver fibrosis staging. IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium, PragueGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M (2004) Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 51:396–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tanter M, Bercoff J, Athanasiou A et al (2008) Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 34:1373–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cosgrove DO, Berg WA, Doré CJ et al (2012) Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol 22:1023–1032CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D’Onofrio M, Gallotti A, Mucelli RP (2010) Tissue quantification with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: measurement repeatability and normal values in the healthy liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:132–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanquinet S, Courvoisier D, Kanavaki A et al (2013) Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging — normal values of liver stiffness in healthy children. Pediatr Radiol 43:539–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan R. Dillman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shigao Chen
    • 2
  • Matthew S. Davenport
    • 3
  • Heng Zhao
    • 2
  • Matthew W. Urban
    • 2
  • Pengfei Song
    • 2
  • Kuanwong Watcharotone
    • 4
  • Paul L. Carson
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Section of Pediatric RadiologyUniversity of Michigan Health System, C. S. Mott Children’s HospitalAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physiology and Biomedical EngineeringMayo College of MedicineRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Division of Abdominal Imaging, Department of RadiologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Division of Basic Radiological Sciences, Department of RadiologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations