Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2026
Magnetic Resonance Elastography Methodology for the Evaluation of Tissue Engineered Construct Growth
Published on: February 9, 2012
Diagnostic performance and clinical utility of shear-wave elastography in musculoskeletal soft-tissue tumors: a
Yayun Lin1, Jianping Wang2, Hao Sun1
1Department of Ultrasound, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, Shandong, China.
Background:
Shear-wave elastography (SWE) is increasingly used to assess musculoskeletal soft-tissue masses, but its diagnostic performance relative to ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains uncertain.
Objective:
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility of SWE for differentiating benign and malignant soft-tissue tumors.
Methods:
Following PRISMA-DTA guidelines, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and RSNA/WFUMB proceedings were searched through 22 September 2025. Eligible studies included patients with histologically verified extraosseous soft-tissue masses evaluated using quantitative SWE. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were extracted or reconstructed. Owing to marked methodological and threshold heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed. Certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE-DTA.
Results:
Ten studies (n = 1,335 lesions; 22-41% malignant) met inclusion criteria following a search of six databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and RSNA/WFUMB proceedings) through 22 September 2025. SWE reproducibility was high where reported (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.85 in four studies), but diagnostic performance varied widely (AUC range 0.57-0.87). In some studies, In selected studies, SWE was associated with potentially higher specificity in benign-appearing or superficial lesions (ΔAUC +0.07 vs US in one cohort), but it failed to distinguish lipomatous or deep lesions from malignancy. MRI remained superior in most direct comparisons (AUC 0.85-0.90). Threshold heterogeneity and poor cross-vendor reproducibility limited generalizability. Certainty of evidence was moderate for superficial lesions and low for deep or lipomatous tumors.
Conclusion:
SWE demonstrates excellent reproducibility but inconsistent diagnostic utility across lesion types. It should be applied selectively primarily for superficial, non-fatty lesions as an adjunct to US rather than as a stand-alone diagnostic tool. Standardized acquisition protocols and vendor calibration are prerequisites for broader clinical adoption.
Systematic Review Registration:
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1172017, identifier CRD420251172017.
