ArticleJournal of biomedical research2018
Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced magnetic resonance for breast nodules.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: A rare case of breast leiomyoma with literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Classification of breast cancer molecular subtypes based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound and superb microvascular imaging using machine learning approach.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Current status and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnosis of breast lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in breast ductal abnormalities.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Article
- Characterizing breast masses using an integrative framework of machine learning and CEUS-based radiomics.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Article
- Article
- 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
- Comparison of Linear and Convex-Array Transducers in Assessing the Enhancement Characteristics of Suspicious Breast Lesions at Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-cystic breast lesions using external perfusion software.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparative study of two contrast agents for intraoperative identification of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with early breast cancer.Gland surgery · 2021Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis and Treatment Modulation of Breast Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for breast lesions of different sizes: a comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.