Trial reportBioMed research international2014
CEUS helps to rerate small breast tumors of BI-RADS category 3 and category 4.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic test of conventional ultrasonography combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the subcategorization of suspicious Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 breast lesions.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with clinicopathological features in microinvasive ductal carcinomaGland surgery · 2024Article
- Current status and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnosis of breast lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Combining primary tumor features derived from conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound facilitates the prediction of positive axillary lymph nodes in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 malignant breast lesions.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Characterizing breast masses using an integrative framework of machine learning and CEUS-based radiomics.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Article
- The clinical value of conventional ultrasound combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of BI-RADS 4 lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of malignant non-mass breast lesions and exploration of diagnostic criteria.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Factors influencing the performance of a diagnostic model including contrast-enhanced ultrasound in 1023 breast lesions: comparison with histopathology.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: could multi-mode ultrasound be helpful for their diagnosis?Gland surgery · 2019Article
- A multicenter study of a contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic classification of breast lesions.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary aim of this study was to explore if classification, whether using the BI-RADS categories based on CEUS or conventional ultrasound, was conducive to the identification of benign and malignant category 3 or 4 small breast lesions. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe evaluated 30 malignant and 77 benign small breast lesions using CEUS. The range of enhancement, type of enhancement strength, intensity of enhancement, and enhancement patterns were independent factors included to assess the BI-RADS categories.
resultsOf the nonenhanced breast lesions, 97.8% (44/45) were malignant, while, of the hyperplasic nodules, 96.8% (30/31) showed no enhancement in our study. Category changes of the lesions were made according to the features determined using CEUS. The results showed that these features could improve diagnostic sensitivity (from 70.0 to 80.0, 80.0, 90.0, and 90.0%), reduce the negative likelihood ratio (from 0.33 to 0.22, 0.25, 0.11, and 0.12), and improve the NPV (from 88.8 to 92.2, 91.2, 96.2, and 95.5%). However, this was not conducive to improve diagnostic specificity or the PPV.
conclusionThe vast majority of nonenhanced small breast lesions were malignant and most of the hyperplasic nodules showed no contrast enhancement. As a reference, CEUS was helpful in identifying BI-RADS category 3 or 4 small breast lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.