In this study, SWE and LOX gene expression values detected in malignant tissues were consistent with the literature and LOXL1 gene expression values were higher in the central regions of the cancerous tissues (
9-
15). E-max values with distant metastases, SWE ratio and SWE-SD values with axillary metastases were in good correlation. We found no direct correlation between peritumoral elevated elasticity values and LOX gene activity.
Many explanations have been reported in the formation of stiff sign. Peri-tumoral stromal stiffness stemming from abnormal tumor-associated collagen accumulation and lymphangiogenesis has been suggested as the reason for high SWE values measured at the peripheral part of BCs and the amount of collagen was reported to be positively correlated with E-max values (
9,
14,
18). Before our study, Hayashi et al. reported a positive correlation between strain elastography and the LOX mRNA expression levels of BC lesions. However, in this study, all data were obtained from entire lesions, not from the peripheries. In addition, they studied only BC cases and LOX values of benign breast lesions were not evaluated (
19,
20). Actually, the higher LOX activity detected in the central parts of the cancerous tissues in our study is correlated with the findings of Hayashi et al. Our study is the first research that investigates the correlation between SWE features and LOX genes expression levels, which might be considered as a reason for tumor niche formation, and indirectly for the characteristic stiff-rim sign of SWE.
On the other hand, it is known that increased amount of collagen and desmoid reaction are not the only reasons of the highest elasticity values at peripheral parts of BC lesion. Increased precompression by radiologist, reflection of the shear waves by the corners of the lesion, big size, increased inflammation, patient age, depth of the lesion, Doppler flow signal and hard structures beside the lesion as like thoracic wall are other suggested reasons of this increased local stiffness (
15,
21,
22).
We have some hypotheses about our results. Firstly, during biopsy, we were careful of obtaining samples from the stiffest points and avoiding precompression but maybe the stiffest points were not the optimal regions of highest LOX expression. Park et al. used multiple ROIs along the stiff rim sign and reported that the stiffness was higher at the borders of the lesion (
23). Excisional biopsy instead of core-biopsy and investigation of LOX activity from tumor borders could change the results. Secondly, according to some publications, LOX activity in benign breast lesions and normal parenchyma was found to be higher than that in malignant tissues (
24). Not comparing the tumor-bearing and non-tumorous areas of the same patient for LOX activity could be another point that might have affected our results. However, we couldn’t get approval from our ethics committee about this point. Thirdly, Peyrol et al. and, Patani et al. suggested that the high-level LOX expression in the peritumoral stroma of in-situ ductal carcinoma reflected activation of a host tissue defense (
5,
25). As tumor invasion progressed, the LOX expression levels decreased, non-crosslinked collagen deposits increased in number, and the peritumoral stroma became looser. Finally, the tumor overcame the defense mechanism; local invasion triggered angiogenesis and metastasis (
5,
25). All but one of the lesions that we studied were invasive and the theory outlined above may explain our finding of high elasticity values associated with low peripheral LOX levels. Both biological and radiological characteristics of peritumoral stroma still remain unclear. Therefore, prospective studies with large number of samples including both in-situ and invasive BC types are needed to point out this relationship in the future.
Chang et al. and Au et al. suggested that tumor size was the most important factor influencing SWE data; larger tumors exhibit a higher-level, peripheral desmoplastic reaction; increased cellularity; and more angiogenesis and edema than do smaller lesions (
26,
27). We found no significant correlation between tumor size and any SWE parameter (P > 0.05). However, larger tumors tended to have higher Emean values.
Evans et al. had found strong correlations between tumor type (especially invasive lobular carcinoma) and SWE parameters (
28) However, the others disagreed about this. Youk et al. and Ganau et al. found no significant difference in any SWE parameter by the type of lobular cancer studied (
29,
30). However, Brkljacic et al. found that invasive lobular carcinomas were stiffer than invasive ductal carcinomas < 1.5 cm in diameter (
31). The pathological diagnoses of our patients were: 6.7% (n = 2) ductal carcinoma in situ, 3.3% (n = 1) tubular carcinoma, 80.0% (n = 24) invasive ductal carcinoma, 3.3% (n = 1) invasive lobular carcinoma, and 6.7% (n = 2) mixed. Most lesions were invasive ductal carcinomas; thus, we could not seek correlations between SWE data and histological type.
In our study, we found that patients with axillary metastases have significantly higher SWE-ratio values (P = 0.048) and SWE-SD (0.014). Also, Emean values were significantly higher (P = 0.022) with distant metastases (liver, bone, and/or cranial metastases) compared to the patients with no-metastases.
Our study had several limitations. Although we did not look for inter- and intra-observer reliability in our study, previous studies have shown that reproducibility of SWE technique is high (
9,
32). The work was performed in a single center and our patient number was small. The number of lesions we could examine was limited. We did not compare the depths of the lesions. Therefore, prospective studies with larger numbers of both in-situ and invasive BCs are needed.
In conclusion, stiff rim sign is a feature that enhances the diagnostic and prognostic properties of SWE and in our study, we evaluated LOX values with stiff rim sign for the first time. The results of this study showed that, a statistically significant correlation between SWE parameters and LOX, LOXL-1 and LOXL-2 expression might not be present. Prospective studies with a large number of patients and large lesion profiles including in-situ lesions and different histopathological subtypes are needed to be conducted in the future to validate this relationship.