Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography

Quality Assurance of Point and 2D Shear Wave Elastography through the Establishment of Baseline Data Using Phantoms

Ultrasound elastography has been available on most modern systems; however, the implementation of quality processes tends to be ad hoc. It is essential for a medical physicist to benchmark elastography measurements on each system and track them over time, especially after major software upgrades or repairs. This study aims to establish baseline data using phantoms and monitor them for quality assurance in elastography. In this paper, we utilized two phantoms: a set of cylinders, each with a composite material with varying Young's moduli, and an anthropomorphic abdominal phantom containing a liver modeled to represent early-stage fibrosis. These phantoms were imaged using three ultrasound manufacturers' elastography functions with either point or 2D elastography. The abdominal phantom was also imaged using magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) as it is recognized as the non-invasive gold standard for staging liver fibrosis. The scaling factor was determined based on the data acquired using MR and US elastography from the same vendor. The ultrasound elastography measurements showed inconsistency between different manufacturers, but within the same manufacturer, the measurements showed high repeatability. In conclusion, we have established baseline data for quality assurance procedures and specified the criteria for the acceptable range in liver fibrosis phantoms during routine testing.

Is musculoskeletal pain associated with increased muscle stiffness? Evidence map and critical appraisal of muscle measurements using shear wave elastography

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Approximately 21% of the world's population suffers from musculoskeletal conditions, often associated with sensations of stiff muscles. Targeted therapy requires knowing whether typically involved muscles are objectively stiffer compared to asymptomatic individuals. Muscle stiffness is quantified using ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE). Publications on SWE-based comparisons of muscle stiffness between individuals with and without musculoskeletal pain are increasing rapidly. This work reviewed and mapped the existing evidence regarding objectively measured muscle stiffness in musculoskeletal pain conditions and surveyed current methods of applying SWE to measure muscle stiffness.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL using the keywords "muscle stiffness", "shear wave elastography", "pain", "asymptomatic controls" and synonyms. The search was supplemented by a hand search using Google Scholar. Included articles were critically appraised with the AXIS tool, supplemented by items related to SWE methods. Results were visually mapped and narratively described.

RESULTS

Thirty of 137 identified articles were included. High-quality evidence was missing. The results comprise studies reporting lower stiffness in symptomatic participants, no differences between groups and higher stiffness in symptomatic individuals. Results differed between pain conditions and muscles, and also between studies that examined the same muscle(s) and pathology. The methods of the application of SWE were inconsistent and the reporting was often incomplete.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence regarding the objective stiffness of muscles in musculoskeletal pain conditions is conflicting. Methodological differences may explain most of the inconsistencies between findings. Methodological standards for SWE measurements of muscles are urgently required.

Chinese Ultrasound Doctors Association Guideline on Operational Standards for 2-D Shear Wave Elastography Examination of Musculoskeletal Tissues

The Ultrasound Physician Branch of the Chinese Medical Doctor Association sought to develop evidence-based recommendations on the operational standards for 2-D shear wave elastography examination of musculoskeletal tissues. A consensus panel of 22 Chinese musculoskeletal ultrasound experts reviewed current scientific evidence and proposed a set of 12 recommendations for 13 key issues, including instruments, operating methods, influencing factors and image interpretation. A final consensus was reached through discussion and voting. On the basis of research evidence and expert opinions, the strength of recommendation for each proposition was assessed using a visual analog scale, while further emphasizing the best available evidence during the question-and-answer session. These expert consensus guidelines encourage facilitation of the standardization of clinical practices for collecting and reporting shear wave elastography data.

Evaluating Variability of Commercial Liver Fibrosis Elastography Phantoms

OBJECTIVE

Liver fibrosis has been found to increase the mechanical stiffness of the liver. To mimic different stages of liver fibrosis, commercially available phantoms (Model 039, CIRS, Inc.) have been produced for clinical quality assurance and research purposes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical property variability of the phantoms in two lots of CIRS Model 039 phantoms.

METHODS

Each lot consisted of phantoms of four stiffness types, and there were 8-10 phantoms of each type. Shear wave elastography measurements were conducted on each phantom at 10 different angles. Group velocity measurements and phase velocity curves were calculated for every SWE acquisition. Multilevel functional principal component analysis (MFPCA) was performed on phase velocity data, which decomposes each phase velocity curve into the sum of eigenfunctions of two levels. The variance of the component scores of levels 1 and 2 were used to represent inter-phantom and intra-phantom variability, respectively. The 95% confidence intervals of phase velocity in a phantom type were calculated to reflect curve variability.

DISCUSSION

The standard deviations of the group velocity for phantoms of any type were less than 0.04 and 0.02 m/s for lots 1 and 2, respectively. For both lots, in every type, the phase velocity curves of most individual phantoms fall within the 95% confidence interval.

CONCLUSION

MFPCA is an effective tool for analyzing the inter- and intra-phantom variability of phase velocity curves. Given the known variability of a fully tested lot, estimation of the variability of a new lot can be performed with a reduced number of phantoms tested.

Radiological Society of North America/Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance Shear Wave Speed Bias Quantification in Elastic and Viscoelastic Phantoms

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the bias of shear wave speed (SWS) measurements between different commercial ultrasonic shear elasticity systems and a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) system in elastic and viscoelastic phantoms.

METHODS

Two elastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver, were measured with 5 different ultrasound platforms, and 3 viscoelastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver tissue, were measured with 12 different ultrasound platforms. Measurements were performed with different systems at different sites, at 3 focal depths, and with different appraisers. The SWS bias across the systems was quantified as a function of the system, site, focal depth, and appraiser. A single MRE research system was also used to characterize these phantoms using discrete frequencies from 60 to 500 Hz.

RESULTS

The SWS from different systems had mean difference 95% confidence intervals of ±0.145 m/s (±9.6%) across both elastic phantoms and ± 0.340 m/s (±15.3%) across the viscoelastic phantoms. The focal depth and appraiser were less significant sources of SWS variability than the system and site. Magnetic resonance elastography best matched the ultrasonic SWS in the viscoelastic phantoms using a 140 Hz source but had a - 0.27 ± 0.027-m/s (-12.2% ± 1.2%) bias when using the clinically implemented 60-Hz vibration source.

CONCLUSIONS

Shear wave speed reconstruction across different manufacturer systems is more consistent in elastic than viscoelastic phantoms, with a mean difference bias of < ±10% in all cases. Magnetic resonance elastographic measurements in the elastic and viscoelastic phantoms best match the ultrasound systems with a 140-Hz excitation but have a significant negative bias operating at 60 Hz. This study establishes a foundation for meaningful comparison of SWS measurements made with different platforms.

Reproducibility of shear wave elastography among operators, machines, and probes in an elasticity phantom

PURPOSE

This study was aimed to investigate the reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) among operators, machines, and probes in a phantom, and to evaluate the effect of depth of the embedded inclusions and the accuracy of the measurements.

METHODS

In vitro stiffness measurements were made of six inclusions (10, 40, and 60 kPa) embedded at two depths (1.5 cm and 5 cm) in an elastography phantom. Measurements were obtained by two sonographers using two ultrasound machines (the SuperSonic Imagine Aixplorer with the XC6-1, SL10-2 and SL18-5 probes, and the General Electric LOGIQ E9 with the 9L-D probe). Variability was evaluated using the coefficient of variation. Reproducibility was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

For shallow inclusions, low variability was observed between operators (range, 0.9% to 5.4%). However, the variability increased significantly for deep inclusions (range, 2.4% to 80.8%). The measurement difference between the operators was 1%-15% for superficial inclusions and 3%-43% for deep inclusions. Inter-operator reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC>0.90). The measurement difference between machines was 0%-15% for superficial inclusions and 38.6%-82.9% for deep inclusions. For superficial inclusions, the reproducibility among the three probes was excellent (ICC>0.97). The mean stiffness values of the 10 kPa inclusion were overestimated by 16%, while those of the 40 kPa and 60 kPa inclusions were underestimated by 42% and 48%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Phantom SWE measurements were only reproducible among operators, machines, and probes at superficial depths. SWE measurements acquired in deep regions should not be used interchangeably among operators, machines, or probes.