en Radiation Biology Radiation Biology تحقيق بديع Original Research <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="text-justify:newspaper"><span style="text-kashida-space:50%"><span style="line-height:119%"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Background</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of lesion size on the performance of real-time two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) in the diagnosis of breast lesions. </span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Materials and Methods</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">A total of 118 consecutive female patients with 129 breast lesions (50 malignant and 79 benign) who underwent surgical excision and/or core biopsy were studied. The lesions were categorized into three subgroups according to their size: (1) group 1: < 1.0 cm</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:5.9939pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">³</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">; (2) group 2: 1.0&ndash;4.0 cm</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:5.9939pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">³</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">; (3) group 3: > 4.0 cm</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:5.9939pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">³</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">. The maximum elasticity (Emax), mean elasticity (Emean), and their standard deviation (SD) in the three subgroups were compared and analyzed in terms of the cutoff values acquired by pathological results. </span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Results</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The lesion size significantly differed between benign and malignant masses (</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="language:en-US">P</span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US"> < 0.05). Malignant lesions exhibited significantly elevated values of Emax, Emean, and SD, compared with benign lesions in the three subgroups. The optimal threshold was higher for larger malignant and benign lesions (</span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="language:en-US">P</span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US"> < 0.05). In malignant lesions, the SWE parameters in group 1 were significantly different from those in groups 2 and 3. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of SD was higher than that of Emax and Emean in all three subgroups. </span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Conclusion</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span style="language:en-US">The values of 2D-SWE parameters&nbsp; increase with the increase in size of a breast mass, and the adjustment of the threshold based on lesion size yields a more accurate diagnosis. Among the SWE parameters, SD has the best diagnostic performance.</span></span></span></span>&nbsp;</span></span></span></span></span></span></div> Ultrasound, shear wave, elastography, breast lesions, BI-RADS. 607 613 http://ijrr.com/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-952&slc_lang=en&sid=1 W. Qu 7900319475328460022064 7900319475328460022064 No Department of Ultrasound, Anhui Medical University Affiliated Hefei Hospital, Hefei Second People's Hospital, GuangDe Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230011, China N. He henianan71@qq.com 7900319475328460022065 7900319475328460022065 Yes Department of Ultrasound, Anhui Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University (First Affiliated Hospital of the University of Science and Technology of China), Lujiang Road, Hefei, Anhui,230001, China X. Yang 7900319475328460022066 7900319475328460022066 No Department of Ultrasound, Anhui Medical University Affiliated Hefei Hospital, Hefei Second People's Hospital, GuangDe Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230011, China C. Yuan 7900319475328460022067 7900319475328460022067 No Department of Ultrasound, Anhui Medical University Affiliated Hefei Hospital, Hefei Second People's Hospital, GuangDe Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230011, China G. Zhang 7900319475328460022068 7900319475328460022068 No Department of Ultrasound, Anhui Medical University Affiliated Hefei Hospital, Hefei Second People's Hospital, GuangDe Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230011, China J. Wei 7900319475328460022069 7900319475328460022069 No Department of Ultrasound, Anhui Medical University Affiliated Hefei Hospital, Hefei Second People's Hospital, GuangDe Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230011, China X. Zheng 7900319475328460022070 7900319475328460022070 No Department of Ultrasound, Anhui Medical University Affiliated Hefei Hospital, Hefei Second People's Hospital, GuangDe Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230011, China