The diagnostic performance of conventional ultrasound and strain elastography in malignant soft tissue tumors

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic value of conventional ultrasound (US) and strain elastography (SE) in malignant soft tissue tumors.

Method

A total of 83 soft tissue masses were included prospectively. US and SE imaging were performed at the same time. Two observers assessed the B mode, color Doppler, elastic scores (ES), strain ratio (SR), and SE size to B mode size (EI/B) ratio and compared the consistency of the data between the observers. According to the pathological diagnosis of resection, the cases were divided into malignant and nonmalignant groups. The diagnostic value of conventional US and SE in the prediction of malignant soft tissue tumors was assessed.

Results

The pathology results divided cases into 36 malignant lesions and 47 nonmalignant lesions. There was no statistically significant difference in gender, location, maximum diameter, echo, tail sign, cystic component, Doppler scores, or SR between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, significant differences between the two groups were found in age, depth, heterogeneity, edge, ES, and EI/B (p < 0.05). The biggest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (0.934) was the combination model of age, heterogeneity, edge, ES, and EI/B, and the sensitivity and specificity were 0.861 and 0.957, respectively.

Conclusions

Conventional US and SE are significant for the diagnosis of malignant soft tissue tumors, and SE can be used as a complementary technique to the characterization of STTs using conventional US.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Hung E, Griffith J. Pitfalls in ultrasonography of soft tissue tumors. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2014;18(1):79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rubin B, Antonescu C, Gannon F, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with tumors of bone. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(4):e1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Dangoor A, Seddon B, Gerrand C, et al. UK guidelines for the management of soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2016;6:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Morii T, Kishino T, Shimamori N, et al. Differential diagnosis between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors utilizing ultrasound parameters. J Med Ultrason (2001). 2018;45(1):113–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nagano S, Yahiro Y, Yokouchi M, et al. Doppler ultrasound for diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma: efficacy of ultrasound-based screening score. Radiol Oncol. 2015;49(2):135–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ozturk M, Selcuk MB, Polat AV, et al. The diagnostic value of ultrasound and shear wave elastography in the differentiation of benign and malignant soft tissue tumors. Skelet Radiol. 2020;49:1795–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chiou HJ, Chou YH, Chiu SY, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant superficial soft-tissue masses using grayscale and color Doppler ultrasonography. J Chin Med Assoc. 2009;72(6):307–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sigrist R, Liau J, Kaffas A, et al. Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications. Theranostics. 2017;7(5):1303–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kim Y, Park J, Kim B, et al. Diagnostic value of elastography using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging and strain ratio for breast tumors. J Breast Cancer. 2014;17(1):76–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lu Q, Ling W, Lu C, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: stiffness value and ratio to discriminate malignant from benign focal liver lesions. Radiology. 2015;275(3):880–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sun J, Cai J, Wang X. Real-time ultrasound elastography for differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid nodules: a meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(3):495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Onur M, Poyraz A, Bozgeyik Z, et al. Utility of semiquantitative strain elastography for differentiation between benign and malignant solid renal masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34(4):639–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Cohen J, Riishede I, Carlsen JF, et al. Can strain elastography predict malignancy of soft tissue tumors in a tertiary sarcoma center? Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2020;10(3):148.

  14. 14.

    Li S, Liu L, Lv G. Diagnostic value of strain elastography for differentiating benign and malignant soft tissue masses. Oncol Lett. 2017;14(2):2041–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hahn S, Lee Y, Lee S, et al. Value of the strain ratio on ultrasonic elastography for differentiation of benign and malignant soft tissue tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(1):121–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Riishede I, Ewertsen C, Carlsen J, et al. Strain elastography for prediction of malignancy in soft tissue tumours – preliminary results. Ultraschall Medizin. 2015;36(4):369–74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Park HJ, Lee SY, Lee SM, Kim WT, Lee S, Ahn KS. Strain elastography features of epidermoid tumours in superficial soft tissue: differences from other benign soft-tissue tumours and malignant tumours. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1050):20140797.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lee Y, Song H, Suh J. Use of strain ratio in evaluating superficial soft tissue tumors on ultrasonic elastography. J Med Ultrasonics (2001). 2014;41(3):319–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Barr R. Real-time ultrasound elasticity of the breast: initial clinical results. Ultrasound Q. 2010;26(2):61–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Barr R, Destounis S, Lackey L, et al. Evaluation of breast lesions using sonographic elasticity imaging: a multicenter trial. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(2):281–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R, et al. Clinical experience with elasticity imaging in a community-based breast center. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(2):297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lee JH, Kim Y, Yoo HJ, et al. Prognoses of superficial soft tissue sarcoma: the importance of fascia-tumor relationship on MRI. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(2):282–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Giovagnorio F, Andreoli C, De Cicco M. Color Doppler sonography of focal lesions of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. J Ultrasound Med. 1999;18(2):89–93.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Li A, Peng X, Ma Q, et al. Diagnostic performance of conventional ultrasound and quantitative and qualitative real-time shear wave elastography in musculoskeletal soft tissue tumors. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Tavassoli FA. Pathology of the breast. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

  26. 26.

    Hall T, Zhu Y, Spalding C. In vivo real-time freehand palpation imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29(3):427–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaowu Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dou, Y., Xuan, J., Zhao, T. et al. The diagnostic performance of conventional ultrasound and strain elastography in malignant soft tissue tumors. Skeletal Radiol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-021-03724-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ultrasound (US)
  • Strain elastography (SE)
  • Soft tissue tumors
  • Malignant