ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2020
Breast non-mass-like lesions on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: Feature analysis, breast image reporting and data system classification assessment.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification in diagnosing breast mass-type lesions and nonmass lesions: a comparative analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Current status and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnosis of breast lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Incremental Value of Shear Wave Elastography and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Differential Diagnosis of Breast Non-Mass-Like Lesions.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound for breast cancer and prediction of sentinel lymph node metastases.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Development and internal validation of a conventional ultrasound-based nomogram for predicting malignant nonmasslike breast lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Non-mass Breast Lesions: Could Multimodal Ultrasound Imaging Be Helpful for Their Diagnosis?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The clinical value of conventional ultrasound combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of BI-RADS 4 lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Article
- The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of malignant non-mass breast lesions and exploration of diagnostic criteria.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Does contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) play a better role in diagnosis of breast lesions with calcification? A comparison with MRI.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast non-mass-like lesions (NMLs) account for 9.2% of all breast lesions. The specificity of the ultrasound diagnosis of NMLs is low, and it cannot be objectively classified according to the 5
aimTo analyze the features of benign and malignant breast NMLs in grayscale ultrasonography (US), color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) and CEUS, and to explore the efficacy of the combined diagnosis of NMLs and the effect of CEUS on the BI-RADS classification of NMLs.
methodsA total of 51 breast NMLs verified by pathology were analyzed in our hospital from January 2017 to April 2019. All lesions were examined by US, CDFI and CEUS, and their features from those examinations were analyzed. With pathology as the gold standard, binary logic regression was used to analyze the independent risk factors for malignant breast NMLs, and a regression equation was established to calculate the efficiency of combined diagnosis. Based on the regression equation, the combined diagnostic efficiency of US combined with CEUS (US + CEUS) was determined. The initial BI-RADS-US classification of NMLs was adjusted according to the independent risk factors identified by CEUS, and the diagnostic efficiency of CEUS combined with BI-RADS (CEUS + BI-RADS) was calculated based on the results. ROC curves were drawn to compare the diagnostic values of the three methods, including US, US + CEUS, and CEUS + BI-RADS, for benign and malignant NMLs.
resultsMicrocalcification, enhancement time, enhancement intensity, lesion scope, and peripheral blood vessels were significantly different between benign and malignant NMLs. Among these features, microcalcification, higher enhancement, and lesion scope were identified as independent risk factors for malignant breast NMLs. When US, US + CEUS, and CEUS + BI-RADS were used to identify the benign and malignant breast NMLs, their sensitivity rates were 82.6%, 91.3%, and 87.0%, respectively; their specificity rates were 71.4%, 89.2%, and 92.9%, respectively; their positive predictive values were 70.4%, 87.5%, and 90.9%, respectively; their negative predictive values were 83.3%, 92.6%, and 89.7%, respectively; their accuracy rates were 76.5%, 90.2%, and 90.2%, respectively; and their corresponding areas under ROC curves were 0.752, 0.877 and 0.903, respectively.
conclusionUS combined with CEUS can improve diagnostic efficiency for NMLs. The adjustment of the BI-RADS classification according to the features of contrast-enhanced US of NMLs enables the diagnostic results to be simple and intuitive, facilitates the management of NMLs, and effectively reduces the incidence of unnecessary biopsy.
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.