Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30988749›Full record

ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019

Evaluation of the response of breast cancer patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by combined contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and ultrasound elastography.

Baohua Wang, Tian'An Jiang, Min Huang, Jing Wang, Yanhua Chu, Liyun Zhong, Shusen Zheng

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

7 authors.

Baohua WangDepartment of Ultrasound Medicine, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China.
Tian'An JiangDepartment of Ultrasound Medicine, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China.
Min HuangDepartment of Ultrasound Medicine, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China.
Jing WangDepartment of Ultrasound Medicine, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China.
Yanhua ChuDepartment of Ultrasound Medicine, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China.
Liyun ZhongDepartment of Ultrasound Medicine, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China.
Shusen ZhengDepartment of Surgery, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in combination with ultrasound elastography (UE) is able to accurately predict the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer patients. A total of 65 breast cancer patients who received NAC at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China) between February 2016 and August 2017 and were recruited for the present study. Prior to and after NAC, examination by CEUS, UE or their combination was performed. Pathological results were obtained at the end of each chemotherapy cycle, based on which 41 cases were assigned to the response group and 24 to the non-response group. Kappa values were 0.710, 0.434 and 0.836 for CEUS, UE and CEUS+UE, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for CEUS, UE and CEUS+UE for determining the response to NAC was 0.864 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.765-0.964], 0.715 (95% CI, 0.579-0.850) and 0.910 (95% CI, 0.826-0.993), respectively. It was identified that the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of CEUS+UE were higher than those of CEUS and US individually. The prediction accuracy was 89.2, 90.8 and 100% for CEUS, UE and their combination, respectively. CEUS and UE have their own advantages in evaluating the clinical efficacy of NAC in breast cancer, and a higher accuracy was achieved when the two techniques were applied in combination. Therefore, a combination of CEUS and UE may be a preferred method for the clinical assessment of the efficacy of NAC in breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

breast cancercontrast-enhanced ultrasonographyneoadjuvant chemotherapyultrasound elastography

Identifiers

PMID30988749
PMCPMC6447770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.