Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29921747›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical research2018

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced magnetic resonance for breast nodules.

Cui-Ying Li, Hai-Yan Gong, Li-Jun Ling, Li-Wen Du, Tong Su, Shui Wang, Jie Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in breast ductal abnormalities.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors.

Cui-Ying LiDepartments of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Hai-Yan GongDepartments of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Li-Jun LingDepartments of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Li-Wen DuDepartments of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Tong SuDepartments of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Shui WangDepartments of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Jie WangDepartments of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the current study, we sought to evaluate the diagnostic efficacies of conventional ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), combined US and CEUS and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting focal solid breast lesions. Totally 117 patients with 120 BI-RADS category 4A-5 breast lesions were evaluated by conventional US and CEUS, and MRI, respectively. SonoVue was used as contrast agent in CEUS and injected as an intravenous bolus; nodule scan was performed 4 minutes after bolus injection. A specific sonographic quantification software was used to obtain color-coded maps of perfusion parameters for the investigated lesion, namely the time-intensity curve. The pattern of contrast enhancement and related indexes regarding the time-intensity curve were used to describe the lesions, comparatively with pathological results. Histopathologic examination revealed 46 benign and 74 malignant lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US in detecting malignant breast lesions were 90.14%, 95.92%, and 92.52%, respectively. Meanwhile, CE-MRI showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 88.73%, 95.92%, and 91.67%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve for combined US and CEUS in discriminating benign from malignant breast lesions was 0.936, while that of MRI was 0.923, with no significant difference between them, as well as among groups. The time-intensity curve of malignant hypervascular fibroadenoma and papillary lesions mostly showed a fast-in/fast-out pattern, with no good correlation between them (kappa < 0.20). In conclusion, the combined use of conventional US and CEUS displays good agreement with MRI in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions.

Identifiers

PMID29921747
PMCPMC6103473

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.