Breast vibro-acoustography: initial experience in benign lesions

BMC Medical Imaging

Mostafa Fatemi⁵  Dana H Whaley³  Leman Gunbery Karaberkmez¹  Rickey E Carter⁴  Katrina N Glazebrook³  Karthik Ghosh²  Mohammad Mehrmohammadi⁵  Azra Alizad² 

[1] Bolu IBD Hospital, Radiology, Sanayi Sitesi 32. Blok Demirciler Ve Nalburcular Odasi Hiz. Binasi Alti, No:1, Bolu, 14100, Turkey;Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester 55905, MN, USA;Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester 55905, MN, USA;Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester 55905, MN, USA;Department of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester 55905, MN, USA

关键词: Benign breast lesion;    Vibro-acoustography;    Mammography;    Breast ultrasonography;    Breast neoplasms;   

Others  :  1090041
DOI  :  10.1186/s12880-014-0040-1

 received in 2014-09-04, accepted in 2014-12-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Vibro-acoustography (VA) is a newly developed imaging technology that is based on low-frequency vibrations induced in the object by the radiation force of ultrasound. VA is sensitive to the dynamic characteristics of tissue.Here, we evaluate the performance of VA in identifying benign lesions and compare the results to those of mammography.

Methods

An integrated mammography-VA system designed for in vivo breast imaging was tested on a group of female volunteers, age ≥ 18 years, with suspected breast lesions based on clinical examination. A set of VA scans was acquired after each corresponding mammography. Most lesions were classified as benign based on their histological results. However, in 4 cases, initial diagnosis based on clinical imaging determined that the lesions were cysts. These cysts were aspirated with needle aspiration and disappeared completely under direct ultrasound visualization. Therefore, no biopsies were performed on these cases and lesions were classified as benign based on clinical findings per clinical standards. To define the VA characteristics of benign breast masses, we adopted the features that are normally attributed to such masses in mammography. In a blinded assessment, three radiologists evaluated the VA images independently. The diagnostic accuracy of VA for detection of benign lesions was assessed by comparing the reviewers’ evaluations with clinical data.

Results

Out of a total 29 benign lesions in the group, the reviewers were able to locate all lesions on VA images and mammography, 100% with (95% confidence interval (CI): 88% to 100%). Two reviewers were also able to correctly classify 83% (95% CI: 65% to 92%), and the third reviewer 86% (95% CI: 65% to 95%) of lesions, as benign on VA images and 86% (95% CI: 69% to 95%) on mammography.

Conclusions

The results suggest that the mammographic characteristics of benign lesion may also be used to identify such lesions in VA. Furthermore, the results show the ability of VA to detect benign breast abnormalities with a performance comparable to mammography. Therefore, the VA technology has the potential to be utilized as a complementary tool for breast imaging applications. Additional studies are needed to compare the capabilities of VA and traditional ultrasound imaging.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Alizad et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Byrne C, Schairer C, Brinton LA, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Carter C, Hoover R: Effects of mammographic density and benign breast disease on breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2001, 12(2):103-110.
• [2]Sickles EA, Filly R, Callen P: Benign breast lesions: ultrasound detection and diagnosis. Radiology 1984, 151(2):467-470.
• [3]Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, Pisano ED, Jong RA, Evans WP, Morton MJ: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008, 299(18):2151-2163.
• [4]Fatemi M, Wold LE, Alizad A, Greenleaf JF: Vibro-acoustic tissue mammography. Med Imaging IEEE Trans 2002, 21(1):1-8.
• [5]Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Lingle WL, Degnim AC, Ghosh K, Vierkant RA, Maloney SD, Pankratz VS, Hillman DW: Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005, 353(3):229-237.
• [6]Burke Beckjord E: Diagnostic breast magnetic resonance imaging and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2009, 16(6):1597-1605.
• [7]Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, Boughey JC, Loprinzi C, Grant CS, Brandt KR, Pruthi S, Chute CG, Olson JE: Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(25):4082-4088.
• [8]Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K, Scott CG, Maloney SD, Carston MJ, Pankratz VS, Sellers TA: Mammographic breast density as a general marker of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2007, 16(1):43-49.
• [9]Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA: Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995, 196(1):123-134.
• [10]Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M, Ferrari A, Speziani M, Bellarosa S, Remida G, Gasparotti C, Galligioni E, Ciatto S: Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Interval breast cancers at 1year follow-up. Eur J Cancer 2011, 47(7):1021-1026.
• [11]Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL: Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 1995, 76(4):626-630.
• [12]Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast us and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations1. Radiology 2002, 225(1):165-175.
• [13]Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, Böhm-Vélez M, Mahoney MC, Evans WP III, Larsen LH: Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012, 307(13):1394-1404.
• [14]Sehgal CM, Weinstein SP, Arger PH, Conant EF: A review of breast ultrasound. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2006, 11(2):113-123.
• [15]Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W, Merritt C, Rubin E: Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: ultrasound. American College of Radiology, Reston; 2003.
• [16]Berg W, Mendelson E, Merritt C, Blume J, Schleinitz M: ACRIN 6666: screening breast ultrasound in high-risk women.American College of Radiology Imaging Network 2007.
• [17]Zanello PA, Robim AFC, Oliveira TMG, Elias-Junior J, Andrade JM, Monteiro CR, Sarmento–Filho JM, Carrara HHA, Muglia VF: Breast ultrasound diagnostic performance and outcomes for mass lesions using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0 mammogram. Clinics 2011, 66(3):443-448.
• [18]Berg WA, Campassi CI, Ioffe OB: Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlation 1. Radiology 2003, 227(1):183-191.
• [19]Mariappan YK, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL: Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin Anat 2010, 23(5):497-511.
• [20]Sinkus R, Siegmann K, Xydeas T, Tanter M, Claussen C, Fink M: MR elastography of breast lesions: understanding the solid/liquid duality can improve the specificity of contrast‐enhanced MR mammography. Magn Reson Med 2007, 58(6):1135-1144.
• [21]Garra BS, Cespedes EI, Ophir J, Spratt SR, Zuurbier RA, Magnant CM, Pennanen MF: Elastography of breast lesions: initial clinical results. Radiology 1997, 202(1):79-86.
• [22]Barr RG: Real-time ultrasound elasticity of the breast: initial clinical results. Ultrasound Q 2010, 26(2):61-66.
• [23]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):1-7.
• [24]Meng W, Zhang G, Wu C, Wu G, Song Y, Lu Z: Preliminary results of acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) ultrasound imaging of breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011, 37(9):1436-1443.
• [25]Yao M, Wu J, Zou L, Xu G, Xie J, Wu R, Xu H: Diagnostic Value of Virtual Touch Tissue Quantification for Breast Lesions with Different Size.BioMed Research International Vol. 2014, Article ID 142504, 7 pages pp.1-7. Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/142504.
• [26]Bai M, Du L, Gu J, Li F, Jia X: Virtual touch tissue quantification using acoustic radiation force impulse technology initial clinical experience with solid breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 2012, 31(2):289-294.
• [27]Plecha DM, Pham RM, Klein N, Coffey A, Sattar A, Marshall H: Addition of shear-wave elastography during second-look mr imaging–directed breast US: effect on lesion detection and biopsy targeting.Radiology 2014.
• [28]Lee SH, Cho N, Chang JM, Koo HR, Kim JY, Kim WH, Bae MS, Yi A, Moon WK: Two-view versus single-view shear-wave elastography: comparison of observer performance in differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. Radiology 2014, 270(2):344-353.
• [29]Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Yi A, Koo HR, Han W, Noh D-Y, Moon H-G, Kim SJ: Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011, 129(1):89-97.
• [30]Cosgrove DO, Berg WA, Doré CJ, Skyba DM, Henry J-P, Gay J, Cohen-Bacrie C: Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. Eur Radiol 2012, 22(5):1023-1032.
• [31]Barr RG, Zhang Z: Effects of precompression on elasticity imaging of the breast development of a clinically useful semiquantitative method of precompression assessment. J Ultrasound Med 2012, 31(6):895-902.
• [32]Nightingale K, McAleavey S, Trahey G: Shear-wave generation using acoustic radiation force: in vivo and ex vivo results. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003, 29(12):1715-1723.
• [33]Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M: Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control IEEE Trans 2004, 51(4):396-409.
• [34]Fatemi M, Greenleaf JF: Vibro-acoustography: an imaging modality based on ultrasound-stimulated acoustic emission. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1999, 96(12):6603-6608.
• [35]Alizad A, Whaley DH, Urban MW, Carter RE, Kinnick RR, Greenleaf JF, Fatemi M: Breast vibro-acoustography: initial results show promise. Breast Cancer Res 2012, 14(5):R128. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Fatemi M, Greenleaf JF: Ultrasound-stimulated vibro-acoustic spectrography. Science 1998, 280(5360):82-85.
• [37]Fatemi M, Greenleaf JF: Probing the dynamics of tissue at low frequencies with the radiation force of ultrasound. Phys Med Biol 2000, 45(6):1449.
• [38]Fatemi M, Manduca A, Greenleaf JF: Imaging elastic properties of biological tissues by low-frequency harmonic vibration. Proc IEEE 2003, 91(10):1503-1519.
• [39]Fatemi MGJ: Imaging and evaluating the elastic properties of biological tissues. BMUS 2000, 8:16-18.
• [40]Alizad A, Fatemi M, Wold LE, Greenleaf JF: Performance of vibro-acoustography in detecting microcalcifications in excised human breast tissue: a study of 74 tissue samples. Med Imaging IEEE Trans 2004, 23(3):307-312.
• [41]Urban MW, Alizad A, Aquino W, Greenleaf JF, Fatemi M: A review of vibro-acoustography and its applications in medicine. Curr Med Imaging Rev 2011, 7(4):350.
• [42]Alizad A, Wold LE, Greenleaf JF, Fatemi M: Imaging mass lesions by vibro-acoustography: modeling and experiments. Med Imaging IEEE Trans 2004, 23(9):1087-1093.
• [43]Alizad A, Fatemi M, Whaley DH, Greenleaf JF: Application of vibro-acoustography for detection of calcified arteries in breast tissue. J Ultrasound Med 2004, 23(2):267-273.
• [44]Alizad A, Whaley D, Greenleaf J, Fatemi M: Potential applications of vibro-acoustography in breast imaging. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2005, 4(2):151-158.
• [45]Alizad A, Whaley DH, Greenleaf JF, Fatemi M: Critical issues in breast imaging by vibro-acoustography. Ultrasonics 2006, 44:e217-e220.
• [46]Chen S, Aquino W, Alizad A, Urban MW, Kinnick R, Greenleaf JF, Fatemi M: Thermal safety of vibro-acoustography using a confocal transducer. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010, 36(2):343-349.
• [47]Fatemi, M and Greenleaf, JF: Imaging the Viscoelastic Properties of Tissue. In Fink et al. (Eds.): Imaging of Complex Media with Acoustic and Seismic Waves. Topics Appl. Phys. 84. 257-275 (2002). Springer-Verlag berlin Heidelberg.
• [48]Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter-and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2000, 174(6):1769-1777.
• [49]Weinstein SP, Conant EF, Mies C, Acs G, Lee S, Sehgal C: Posterior acoustic shadowing in benign breast lesions sonographic-pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med 2004, 23(1):73-83.
• [50]Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kwak JY, Kim E-K: Probably benign breast lesions on ultrasonography: a retrospective review of ultrasonographic features and clinical factors affecting the BI-RADS categorization. Acta Radiol 2010, 51(4):375-382.
• [51]Mehrmohammadi M, Fazzio RT, Whaley DH, Pruthi S, Kinnick RR, Fatemi M, Alizad A: Preliminary in vivo breast vibro-acoustography results with a quasi-2-D array transducer: a step forward toward clinical applications.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 2014.
• [52]Urban MW, Chalek C, Kinnick RR, Kinter TM, Haider B, Greenleaf JF, Thomenius KE, Fatemi M: Implementation of vibro-acoustography on a clinical ultrasound system. Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control IEEE Trans 2011, 58(6):1169-1181.