ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline for Molecular Breast Imaging with Dedicated γ-Cameras.Journal of nuclear medicine technology · 2022Guideline
- Breast-specific gamma imaging or ultrasonography as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts.European radiology · 2020Article
- Comparison of BSGI, MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for the diagnosis of breast lesions and their correlations with specific molecular subtypes in Chinese women.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
- Histogram analysis with computed tomography angiography for discriminating soft tissue sarcoma from benign soft tissue tumor.Medicine · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate which feature of the breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) uptake in women who were recently diagnosed with breast cancer was associated with malignancy.
methodsData on 231 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who underwent preoperative BSGI were retrospectively reviewed. Feature analysis was done by classifying BSGI uptake into mass, non-mass, or focus/foci. Descriptors for mass, non-mass, or focus/foci were shape, distribution, number, and intensity. BSGI features of known malignancies and lesions that were additionally found by BSGI were correlated with mammographic breast density, histology, hormonal status, and clinical follow-up data obtained over at least 2 years.
resultsAmong 372 breast lesions from 231 patients, 241 malignancies had been pathologically confirmed prior to BSGI and 131 additional lesions were found on BSGI. Irregular shape was more predictive of malignancy than oval shape (p=0.004) in mass uptake. Linear/ductal distribution was more predictive of malignancy than focal, regional, and segmental distribution (p<0.05) in non-mass uptake. Mammographic breast density was not associated with BSGI features. The lesion to normal ratio (LNR) was higher in the postmenopausal patients than that in the premenopausal patients (p=0.003).
conclusionsThe feature analysis of radiotracer uptake in BSGI is useful in predicting whether breast lesions are malignant or benign. KEY POINTS: • The feature analysis of BSGI uptake is useful in predicting malignancy. • Irregular shape was predictive of malignancy in mass uptake. • Linear/ductal distribution was predictive of malignancy in non-mass uptake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29948076What 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.