Search

Simple Summary: Testicular cancer is a prevalent malignancy in young men aged 15 to 35 years. Sonoelastography is an emerging technique for distinguishing between non-neoplasms, benignities, and malignancies by characterizing the tissue stiffness of testes. This review provides a summary of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of sonoelastography for identifying benign and malignant lesions, as well as tumors and non-tumors. The objective of this review was to summarize the applications of sonoelastography in testicular tumor identification and inquire about their test performances. Two authors independently searched English journal articles and full conference papers from CINAHL, Embase, IEEE Xplore®, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception and organized them into a PIRO (patient, index test, reference test, outcome) framework. Eleven studies (n = 11) were eligible for data synthesis, nine of which (n = 9) utilized strain elastography and two (n = 2) employed shear-wave elastography. Meta-analyses were performed on the distinction between neoplasm (tumor) and non-neoplasm (non-tumor) from four study arms and between malignancy and benignity from seven study arms. The pooled sensitivity of classifying malignancy and benignity was 86.0% (95%CI, 79.7% to 90.6%). There was substantial heterogeneity in the classification of neoplasm and non-neoplasm and in the specificity of classifying malignancy and benignity, which could not be addressed by the subgroup analysis of sonoelastography techniques. Heterogeneity might be associated with the high risk of bias and applicability concern, including a wide spectrum of testicular pathologies and verification bias in the reference tests. Key technical obstacles in the index test were manual compression in strain elastography, qualitative observation of non-standardized color codes, and locating the Regions of Interest (ROI), in addition to decisions in feature extractions. Future research may focus on multiparametric sonoelastography using deep learning models and ensemble learning. A decision model on the benefits–risks of surgical exploration (reference test) could also be developed to direct the test-and-treat strategy for testicular tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women globally. Early and accurate screening of breast tumours can improve survival. Ultrasound elastography is a non-invasive and non-ionizing imaging approach to characterize lesions for breast cancer screening, while machine learning techniques could improve the accuracy and reliability of computer-aided diagnosis. This review focuses on the state-of-the-art development and application of the machine learning model in breast tumour classification. Ultrasound elastography can quantify stiffness distribution of tissue lesions and complements conventional B-mode ultrasound for breast cancer screening. Recently, the development of computer-aided diagnosis has improved the reliability of the system, whilst the inception of machine learning, such as deep learning, has further extended its power by facilitating automated segmentation and tumour classification. The objective of this review was to summarize application of the machine learning model to ultrasound elastography systems for breast tumour classification. Review databases included PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Thirteen (n = 13) articles were eligible for review. Shear-wave elastography was investigated in six articles, whereas seven studies focused on strain elastography (5 freehand and 2 Acoustic Radiation Force). Traditional computer vision workflow was common in strain elastography with separated image segmentation, feature extraction, and classifier functions using different algorithm-based methods, neural networks or support vector machines (SVM). Shear-wave elastography often adopts the deep learning model, convolutional neural network (CNN), that integrates functional tasks. All of the reviewed articles achieved sensitivity ≥80%, while only half of them attained acceptable specificity ≥95%. Deep learning models did not necessarily perform better than traditional computer vision workflow. Nevertheless, there were inconsistencies and insufficiencies in reporting and calculation, such as the testing dataset, cross-validation, and methods to avoid overfitting. Most of the studies did not report loss or hyperparameters. Future studies may consider using the deep network with an attention layer to locate the targeted object automatically and online training to facilitate efficient re-training for sequential data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]