Advertisement

Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 440–447 | Cite as

Sonoelastographic strain ratio: how does the position of reference fat influence it?

  • Na Young Jung
  • Chang Suk ParkEmail author
  • Sung Hun Kim
  • Hyun Seouk Jung
  • Kijun Kim
  • Jung Whee Lee
  • Yu Ri Shin
  • Se-Jeong Oh
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the reference fat position influenced the calculation of the sonoelastographic strain ratio.

Methods

Three hundred fifty-eight breast masses (256 benign lesions and 102 malignant lesions) in 300 women (mean age 47.4 years; age range 17–82 years) who had been scheduled for a percutaneous needle biopsy or surgical excision were examined using B-mode ultrasonography and elastography. The sonoelastographic strain ratio was calculated twice per lesion; once by dividing the strain value of the fat near the mass by that of the mass (FLR 1) and once by dividing the strain value of the subcutaneous fat by that of the mass (FLR 2).

Results

Most (91.9 %) showed a difference of less than 0.5 between FLR 1 and FLR 2 values. Regardless of the position of reference fat, there was no statistically significant difference between the FLR 1 and FLR 2 values (p value = 0.077 and 0.0825, respectively). According to the pathology of the lesion, a difference between FLR 1 and FLR 2 less than 0.5 occurred in 95.3 % of the benign lesions and 84 % of the malignant lesions (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The sonoelastographic strain ratio was not significantly affected by the position of reference fat.

Keywords

Elasticity score Sonoelastography Strain ratio 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, Bojunga J, Correas J-M, Gilja OH, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34:238–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bamber J, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF, Fromageau J, Bojunga J, Calliada F, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34:169–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA, Whitman GJ, Feldman MI, Madjar H, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound. In: D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al., editors. ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239:341–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ueno E, Umemoto T, Bando H, TohnoE, Waki K, Matsumura T. New quantitative method in breast elastography: fat lesion ratio (FLR). In: Radiological Society of North America 2007 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 25 November 30, 2007. http://archive.rsna.org/2007/5015476.html. Accessed 17 July 2014.
  6. 6.
    Zhi H, Xiao XY, Yang HY, Wen YL, Ou B, Luo BM, et al. Semi-quantitating stiffness of breast solid lesions in ultrasonic elastography. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:1347–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cho N, Moon WK, Kim HY, Chang JM, Park SH, Lyou CY. Sonoelastographic strain index for differentiation of benign and malignant nonpalpable breast masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhi H, Xiao XY, Yang JY, Wen YL, Ou B, Luo BM, et al. Ultrasonic elastography in breast cancer diagnosis: strain ratio vs 5-point scale. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:1227–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Slowinski T, Fischer T. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:558–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer T, Peisker U, Fiedor S, Slowinski T, Wedemeyer P, Diekmann F, et al. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: raw data-based calculation of strain ratio. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33:372–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stachs A, Hartmann S, Stubert J, Dieterich M, Martin A, Kundt G, et al. Differentiating between malignant and benign breast masses: factors limiting sonoelastographic strain ratio. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34:131–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhi H, Ou B, Luo BM, Feng X, Wen YL, Yang HY. Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:807–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Waki K, Murayama N, Matsumura T, Mitake T. Investigation of strain ratio using ultrasound elastography technique. In: Proceedings of ISICE: The first international symposium on information and computer elements. Kitakyushu, Japan, Sep 12–14, 2007, pp 449–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Na Young Jung
    • 1
  • Chang Suk Park
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sung Hun Kim
    • 3
  • Hyun Seouk Jung
    • 2
  • Kijun Kim
    • 2
  • Jung Whee Lee
    • 2
  • Yu Ri Shin
    • 2
  • Se-Jeong Oh
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaBucheonKorea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaIncheonKorea
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaIncheonKorea

Personalised recommendations