• Hong Li, Peng Cong, Ya-Na Yu, and Yun-Fei Zhang.
• Department of Transplantation and General Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jun 7; 103 (23): e38425e38425.

BackgroundNot all the breast lesions were mass-like, some were non-mass-like at ultrasonography. In these lesions, conventional ultrasonography had a high sensitivity but a low specificity. Sonoelastography can evaluate tissue stiffness to differentiate malignant masses from benign ones. Then what about the non-mass lesions? The aim of this study was to evaluate the current accuracy of sonoelastography in the breast non-mass lesions and compare the results with those of the American College of Radiology breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).MethodsAn independent literature search of English medical databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase & MEDLINE (Embase.com) and Cochrane Library, was performed by 2 researchers. The accuracy of sonoelastography was calculated and compared with those of BI-RADS.ResultsFourteen relevant studies including 1058 breast non-mass lesions were included. Sonoelastography showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70-0.78), specificity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 25.22 (95% CI: 17.71-35.92), and an area under the curve of 0.9042. Eight articles included both sonoelastography and BI-RADS. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC were 0.69 versus 0.91 (P < .01), 0.90 versus 0.68 (P < .01), 19.65 versus 29.34 (P > .05), and 0.8685 versus 0.9327 (P > .05), respectively.ConclusionsSonoelastography has a higher specificity and a lower sensitivity for differential diagnosis between malignant and benign breast non-mass lesions compared with BI-RADS, although there were no differences in AUC between them.Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

17 keywords...

hide…