A prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional breast ultrasound

AimTo compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional ultrasound in the assessment of breast lesions.Materials and methodsThe study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board. A prospective study involving 99 consecutive women who gave informed consent were enrolled from September 2007 to March 2008. One hundred and ten breast lesions were evaluated separately by conventional ultrasound, elastography and combined conventional ultrasound with elastography. Ultrasound assessment was based on the BIRADS classification, whereas elastographic assessment was based on strain pattern and the elastographic size ratios. Histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each technique were compared.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 46.7 years. Twenty-six lesions were malignant and 84 were benign. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88.5, 42.9 and 53.6%, respectively, for conventional ultrasound, 100, 73.8, and 80%, respectively, for elastography, and 88.5, 78.6, and 80.9%, respectively, for combined imaging. The specificity and accuracy of elastography and combined imaging were significantly better than that of conventional ultrasound (p<0.0001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity between all three groups. Two-thirds (66.7%) of sonographic false-positive lesions had benign elastogram findings, which might have been spared from biopsy.ConclusionThis initial experience with ultrasound breast elastography showed that it was more specific and more accurate than conventional ultrasound. Combining elastography with ultrasound improved specificity and accuracy of ultrasound and can potentially reduce unnecessary breast biopsies.