ArticleInternational journal of molecular medicine2018
Diagnostic and prognostic values of contrast‑enhanced ultrasound combined with diffusion‑weighted magnetic resonance imaging in different subtypes of breast cancer.
Article in International journal of molecular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation analysis between rim enhancement features of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and lymph node metastasis in breast cancer.American journal of translational research · 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
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2020-02-04Lack of Approval from Company/Institution ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic values of contrast‑enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) combined with diffusion‑weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW‑MRI) in different subtypes of breast cancer (BC). CEUS and DW‑MRI were conducted in 232 patients with BC prior to surgical treatment. Patients were categorized as having the luminal A subtype, the luminal B subtype, triple‑negative subtype or the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her‑2)‑positive subtype according to their expression of the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and Her‑2, as detected by immunohistochemistry. The CEUS and DW‑MRI parameters of patients with different subtypes of BC were obtained and analyzed. The risk factors for the prognosis of patients with different subtypes of BC were analyzed using Kaplan‑Meier and COX regression analyses. The diagnostic accuracy rate of CEUS combined with DW‑MRI (93.10%) was higher than that of CEUS (88.79%) or DW‑MRI (82.33%) alone. The local recurrence rate and distant metastasis rate of the Her‑2‑positive subtype were the highest among all the subtypes. Furthermore, patients with Her‑2‑positive BC exhibited a higher proportion of lesions with indistinct margins and histological grade III. Lymph node metastasis and BC subtype were independent risk factors for the prognosis of BC. The overall survival and disease‑free survival of patients with the luminal A subtype were higher than those of patients with the Her‑2‑positive subtype. The results of the current study therefore indicate that CEUS combined with DW‑MRI is more effective at diagnosing the different subtypes of BC than either CEUS or DW‑MRI alone.
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.