ArticleCancer management and research2019
A multicenter study of a contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic classification of breast lesions.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- An observational study of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing malignant breast masses.Polish journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Features of Renal Hemangiomas: A Retrospective Descriptive Study.Current medical imaging · 2026Article
- The diagnostic value of real-time ultrasound elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in BI-RADS 4A breast lesions.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Diagnostic test of conventional ultrasonography combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the subcategorization of suspicious Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 breast lesions.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Current status and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnosis of breast lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Ceusia-Breast: computer-aided diagnosis with contrast enhanced ultrasound image analysis for breast lesions.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Article
- Prospective evaluation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound of breast BI-RADS 3-5 lesions.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
- 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
- Factors influencing the performance of a diagnostic model including contrast-enhanced ultrasound in 1023 breast lesions: comparison with histopathology.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate a classification model of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and examine the characteristics of patients with false-negative diagnosis. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective secondary analysis of a multicenter trial of CEUS for breast cancer diagnosis (from August 2015 to April 2017) was undertaken. Patients (n=1,023) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4-5 lesions on B-mode ultrasound underwent CEUS. Pathological diagnoses were available from surgical or biopsy specimens for correlation. Lesion maximum diameter (LMD), distance to the papilla (DtP), distance from the superficial edge of the lesion to the skin (DtS), distance from the deep edge of the lesion to the pectoralis muscle (DtPM), and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated.
resultsMedian age and BMI were 48.0 and 41.2 years and 23.2 and 22.4 kg/m
conclusionOlder age, higher BMI, larger LMD and DtP, and smaller DtS and DtPM were associated with malignant lesions on CEUS. Patients with these characteristics should undergo further imaging.
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.