Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30094592›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2018

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

Andrew Evans, Rubina M Trimboli, Alexandra Athanasiou, Corinne Balleyguier, Pascal A Baltzer, Ulrich Bick, Julia Camps Herrero, Paola Clauser, Catherine Colin, Eleanor Cornford and 17 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 181 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Ultrasound Based Viscoelasticity Imaging Tool for Differentiation of Breast Lesions.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2025
    Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

27 authors at 16 institutions in 12 countries.

Andrew EvansDundee Cancer Centre, Clinical Research Centre, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Tom McDonald Avenue, Dundee, UK.
Rubina M TrimboliPhD Course in Integrative Biomedical Research, Department of Biomedical Science for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli, 31, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Alexandra AthanasiouBreast Imaging Department, MITERA Hospital, 6, Erithrou Stavrou Str. 151 23 Marousi, Athens, Greece.
Corinne BalleyguierDepartment of Radiology, Gustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800, Villejuif, France.
Pascal A BaltzerDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Austria.
Ulrich BickClinic of Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Julia Camps HerreroDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of La Ribera, Carretera de Corbera, Km 1, 46600, Alzira, Valencia, Spain.
Paola ClauserDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Austria.
Catherine ColinRadiology Unit, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Femme Mère Enfant, 59 Boulevard Pinel, 69 677, Bron Cedex, France.
Eleanor CornfordThirlestaine Breast Centre, Cheltenham General Hospital, Thirlestaine Road, Cheltenham, GL53 7AP, UK.
Eva M FallenbergClinic of Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Michael H FuchsjaegerDivision of General Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 9, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Fiona J GilbertDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Thomas H HelbichDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Austria.
Karen KinkelInstitut de Radiologie, Clinique des Grangettes, Chemin des Grangettes 7, 1224, Chêne-Bougeries, Genève, Switzerland.
Sylvia H Heywang-KöbrunnerReferenzzentrum Mammographie München and FFB gGmbH München, Sonnenstraße 29, 80331, Munich, Germany.
Christiane K KuhlUniversity Hospital of Aachen, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Laura MartincichUnità Operativa Radiodiagnostica, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Str. Prov. 142, km 3.95, 10060, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Pietro PanizzaBreast Imaging Unit, Scientific Institute (IRCCS) Ospedale San Raffaele, Via Olgettina, 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University, Viale Regina Elena, 324, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Ruud M PijnappelDepartment of Imaging, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Katja PinkerDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Austria.
Sophia ZackrissonDiagnostic Radiology, Department of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, SE-205 02, Malmö, Sweden.
Gabor ForraiDepartment of Radiology, Duna Medical Center, Budapest, Hungary.
Francesco SardanelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. francesco.sardanelli@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-9427
European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) , with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition
University of Milan · ITCheltenham General Hospital · GBHirslanden Clinique des Grangettes · CHHospital de La Ribera · ESInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITMedical University of Graz · ATMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLHospices Civils de Lyon · FRLund University · SEMedical University of Vienna · ATNinewells Hospital · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Cambridge · GBWestfälische Hochschule · DE

Funding

Cancer Research UK 26884
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40-74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. TEACHING POINTS: • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

Indexed as

Automated whole breast ultrasoundBI-RADSBreast cancerBreast ultrasound (US)Colour-DopplerElastography

Identifiers

PMID30094592
PMCPMC6108964
OpenAlexW2887563333

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.