ArticleClinical imaging
Second opinion interpretation of breast ultrasound images-Is it worth another look?
Article in Clinical imaging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second-opinion interpretation of outside facility general ultrasound studies: rate of discrepancies and management change.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations.The breast journal · 2022Article
- Application of a second opinion ultrasound in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4A cases: can immediate biopsy be avoided?The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine if real-time breast ultrasound (RTUR) after second opinion reinterpretation of submitted static ultrasound images at a comprehensive cancer center impacts clinical management, specifically by detecting additional cancer and preventing unnecessary biopsy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this IRB-approved and HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, 209 patients were included who had breast ultrasound studies from outside facilities submitted for second opinion review between January 2013 and May 2014, and who subsequently underwent RTUR at our institution within three months of the outside study. Findings on submitted exams were compared with those on RTUR and disagreements between them were annotated to indicate the presence or absence of suspicious lesions and recommendation for biopsy. Changes in management were defined as any additional biopsies performed or biopsies averted after RTUR and reported as frequencies and percentages using 95% confidence intervals.
resultsFollowing RTUR, 49 additional biopsies were performed in 43/209 patients (20.6%; 95% CI 15.1-26.1%). Additional cancer was found in 12/49 (24.5%) biopsies in 11/209 patients (5.3%; 95% CI 2.2-8.2%). Forty biopsies in 31/209 (14.8%; CI 10.0-19.7%) patients originally recommended were canceled after RTUR. Overall, a change in management after RTUR was observed in 68/209 patients (32.5%; 95% CI 26.1-38.9%), including patients with either additional biopsies performed or biopsies averted.
conclusionRTUR was found to be an important tool in the management of patients at our comprehensive cancer center. Although additional false-positive lesions may be detected on RTUR, a great number of patients will benefit from RTUR in finding additional cancers or avoiding unnecessary biopsies.
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.