Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28542533›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Ultrasonography methods for predicting malignancy in canine mammary tumors.

Marcus Antonio Rossi Feliciano, Ricardo Andrés Ramirez Uscategui, Marjury Cristina Maronezi, Ana Paula Rodrigues Simões, Priscila Silva, Beatriz Gasser, Leticia Pavan, Cibele Figueira Carvalho, Júlio Carlos Canola, Wilter Ricardo Russiano Vicente

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Quantitative Parameters of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography (CEUS) Monitoring Ovarian Hemodynamics in Rats.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Diagnostic Imaging Features of Mammary Gland Tumors in Dogs and Cats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Marcus Antonio Rossi FelicianoDepartment of Animal Reproduction, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-6539
Ricardo Andrés Ramirez UscateguiDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marjury Cristina MaroneziDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Paula Rodrigues SimõesDepartment of Animal Reproduction, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Priscila SilvaDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Beatriz GasserDepartment of Animal Reproduction, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Leticia PavanDepartment of Animal Reproduction, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cibele Figueira CarvalhoDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Júlio Carlos CanolaDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Wilter Ricardo Russiano VicenteDepartment of Animal Reproduction, UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of B-mode, Doppler, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) elastography in predicting malignancy in canine mammary masses. This was a prospective cohort study from 2014 to 2016, which included 153 bitches with one or more mammary masses. A total of 300 masses were evaluated by ultrasonography (B-mode, Doppler, CEUS, and ARFI) and subsequently classified as benign or malignant by histopathology. Each ultrasound parameters studied were compared between benign and malignant masses by Chi-square or Student tests and differences were considered significant when P < 0.01. For the variables that proved significant differences were estimated the cut-off point, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under curve (AUC) by receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis in a logistic regression model using histopathological classification as reference, to assess and compare diagnostic performance of each technique. Out of 300 mammary masses evaluated 246 were classified as malignant and 54 as benign. B-mode measurements showed sensitivity 67.9%, and specificity 67.6% as malignancy predictors on canine mammary masses; Doppler indexes systolic (>21.2 m/s) and diastolic velocity (>4.8 m/s) sensitivity 79.2% and specificity 70.8%; CEUS wash-out time (<80.5 s) sensitivity 80.2% and specificity 16.7%; and ARFI elastography shear velocity (SWV > 2.57 m/s) sensitivity 94.7% and specificity 97.2% In conclusion B-mode and Doppler ultrasound evaluations may assist in malignancy prediction of canine mammary masses with moderate sensitivity and specificity, already the SWV was an great accurate predictor. Therefore, ARFI elastography exam inclusion in veterinary clinic oncology and research is highly recommended, since it allows fast, non-invasive, and complication-free malignancy prediction of canine mammary masses.

Indexed as

AnimalsArea Under CurveDogsElasticity Imaging TechniquesFemaleMammary Neoplasms, AnimalROC CurveUltrasonography, Mammary

Identifiers

PMID28542533
PMCPMC5439728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.