The current value of quantitative shear wave sonoelastography in parotid gland tumors

Gland Surgery, vol. 10, pp. 1374–1386

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The preoperative differentiation between salivary gland tumor entities using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) is still limited. Biopsies are often regarded as indispensable for properly characterizing these various lesions. The aim of this study was to analyze the value of acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) sonoelastography as an US differentiation tool when examining parotid gland (PG) lesions. METHODS: We included 104 patients with PG masses in this study, employing two different US devices using quantitative ARFI-sonoelastography (Siemens Acuson-S3000, n=59; Siemens Acuson-Sequoia, n=45). The ability of sonoelastographic measurements to differentiate between different neoplasms was compared and analyzed for both US machines. RESULTS: Quantitative shear wave sonoelastography is limited in its ability to reliably differentiate between tumor entities of the PG as a stand-alone parameter. Measurement results were unsystematically distributed and not transferable between the two US devices. A significant differentiation of benign and malignant lesions was not possible with either US machine (S3000: P=0.770, Sequoia: P=0.382). A differentiation between pleomorphic adenomas (PA) and Warthin tumors was only possible with the Acuson S3000 system (P=0.001, Spearman-Rho =0.492, sensitivity 73.9%, specificity 65.0%). CONCLUSIONS: A reliable identification and differentiation of PG tumors as well as clinical treatment decisions cannot be made with the sole use of ARFI-sonoelastography. The results emphasize the device-dependence and high error-proneness of this US technique when examining lesions of the PG.

Authors 7

1. Vivian Thimsen

   Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany

2. Miguel Goncalves Aachen Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Aachen, RWTH, Aachen, Germany

3. Michael Koch

   Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany

4. Konstantinos Mantsopoulos

   Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany

5. Joachim Albert Hornung

   Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany

6. Heinrich Iro

   Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany

7. Mirco Schapher corresponding

   Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany