Clinical Value of Shear Wave Elastography Added to Targeted Ultrasound (Second‐Look Ultrasound) in the Evaluation of Breast Lesions Suspicious of Malignancy Detected on Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of shear wave elastography (SWE) added to targeted ultrasound (US) after breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: From July 2015 to October 2017, 40 patients who underwent targeted US evaluations of suspicious MRI-detected American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 lesions (mass or nonmass enhancement) were enrolled in this prospective study. B-mode US and SWE examinations were performed to detect US correlates to MRI-detected lesions; their Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories were recorded; lesions that were dark blue on a 6-point color scale or had maximum elasticity of 30 kPa or less were categorized as soft. Biopsy was performed with US or MRI guidance, with the pathologic findings correlated with MRI, US, and SWE findings. The value of SWE for lesion detection and identification of benign lesions was determined. RESULTS: The mean age of the 40 patients was 51.1 years. There were 48 MRI-detected lesions (20 cancers, 3 high-risk lesions, and 25 benign lesions). Ultrasound correlates (8 category 3 and 25 category 4) were shown for 33 lesions (69%; P < .0001), with 16 cancers (80%; P < .0001) and 17 benign lesions. Shear wave elastography assisted detection of 3 (19%) cancers on US imaging. All 7 soft US category 3 lesions were benign (7 of 33 [21%]; P = .0014). CONCLUSIONS: Shear wave elastography was useful with targeted US after breast MRI to increase cancer detection by US. A significant number of US correlates to MRI-detected lesions could have been identified as benign (category 3 and soft) before biopsy, with the potential of short-interval follow-up of MRI-detected lesions with benign US correlates instead of biopsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".