Ultrasound has a key role in multimodality breast imaging, and confident cross-correlation is integral to accurate diagnosis and management.

In this session, you will learn how to approach lesion localisation and characterisation on mammography, tomosynthesis and breast MRI in order to improve lesion detection on breast ultrasound.

This presentation is designed for beginners in ultrasound, specifically focusing on breast implants. The goal is to provide participants with a solid foundation in ultrasound principles, imaging techniques, and the spectrum of findings from normal to common complications associated with breast implants. The sonoanatomy of both the breast and silicone implants, with emphasis on essential scanning techniques, optimal image acquisition, and the ability to distinguish normal from abnormal findings will be covered. A systematic approach will be introduced for identifying implant-related issues, such as rupture, capsular contracture, and fluid collections. By the end of the presentation, participants will have gained the knowledge and practical skills necessary to evaluate breast implant integrity through ultrasound. This talk aims to build confidence in addressing clinical questions regarding implant-related complications, ultimately enhancing diagnostic accuracy and improving patient outcomes.

Introduction:This study evaluated the shear wave elastography (SWE) in kilopascals (kPa) and metres per second (m/s) of immunohistochemical (IHC) factors and molecular subtypes of breast cancer. The relationship between those factors and Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) both basal like and non-basal like factors to explore their prognostic significance in malignant breast cancer.
Material and Methods: This single-centre study included 303 patients with 405 solid breast lesions, biopsied and examined using B-mode ultrasound and SWE. Elastography mean (Emean), maximum (Emax), and ratio (Eratio) variables in kPa and m/s were calculated for each lesion.
Results: Among 405 samples, 114 malignant lesions were identified. In IHC comparisons, only the E ratio (m/s) showed a significant difference, with Ki67 high significantly greater than Ki67 low (p = 0.016). Triple-negative cytokeratin (CK5/6) positive was significantly greater than CK5/6 negative for Eratio in kPa (14.1 ± 3.9 vs. 7.9 ± 0.7, p = 0.029) and m/s (3.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4, p = 0.021).
Conclusions: Both kPa and m/s SWE variables identify similar yet slightly different results for prognostic IHC factors and molecular subtypes. Examining both kPa and m/s SWE variables may be useful as a non-invasive method for predicting IHC factors and molecular subtypes to characterise breast lesions before biopsy or surgery.
Take home message: The SWE of the breast can help to characterise TNBC, and a prompt diagnosis is important for the long-term survival of these patients.