ArticleBMC cancer2020
Comparison of
Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Radiology in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer in Women: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Integrated Diagnostics of Thyroid Nodules.Cancers · 2024Review
- Application of Breast Scintigraphy for Patients with Suspicious (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System IV) Breast Lesions.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging: An Added Value in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, a Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Review
- Comparison of BSGI and MRI as Approaches to Evaluating Residual Tumor Status after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Chinese Women with Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Current State of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Theranostics.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Comparison of BSGI, MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for the diagnosis of breast lesions and their correlations with specific molecular subtypes in Chinese women.BMC medical imaging · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to determine the diagnostic efficacy of Breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in Chinese women with BI-RADS 4 category lesions and to compare this efficacy to that of ultrasound/mammography.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 177 women that had undergone BSGI of BI-RADS 4 category lesions originally detected via ultrasound and/or mammography.
resultsOf these 177 cases, 117 (66.1%) were malignant lesions and 60 (33.9%) were benign. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of BSGI were 94.9% (111/117), 78.3% (47/60), 89.5% (111/124), and 88.7% (47/53), respectively. The specificity and positive predictive values for mammography were 48.3% (29/60) and 77.5% (107/138), while for ultrasound they were 53.3% (32/60) and 79.6% (109/137), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of BSGI for the detection of lesions ≤1 cm in size were 90.9% (10/11) and 88.0% (22/25), respectively, while for breast lesions >1 cm in size these values were 94.3% (100/106) and 71.4% (25/35), respectively. In addition, BSGI sensitivity and specificity values for dense breast tissue were 94.0% (79/84) and 78.0% (39/50), respectively, whereas for non-dense breast tissue these vales were 97.0% (32/33) and 80.0% (8/10), respectively. The sensitivity of BSGI for invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) and ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) was 98.9% (95/96) and 75.0% (9/12), respectively. The tumor to normal tissue ratio of BSGI for malignant lesions was significantly higher than for benign lesions (2.18 ± 1.17 vs 1.66 ± 0.40, t = 7.56, P<0.05).
conclusionsThese results indicate that BSGI is highly sensitive for the detection of such lesions, achieving good positive/negative predictive values. This suggests that for IDC in particular, BSGI is superior to ultrasound and mammography for the diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 category lesions, although this was less apparent for the diagnosis of DCIS lesions. BSGI exhibited excellent performance in dense breast tissue and for the detection of lesions ≤1 cm in size.
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.