ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Panoramic photoacoustic computed tomography with learning-based classification enhances breast lesion characterization.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Four Breast Imaging Modalities in Dense Breasts: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Exploring the Evolution of Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of Conventional and Emerging Modalities.Cureus · 2025Review
- Assessment of Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Using MRI andEuropean journal of breast health · 2025Article
- Advances in breast cancer diagnosis: a comprehensive review of imaging, biosensors, and emerging wearable technologies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Role of Breast Ultrasound in Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- An Enhanced LightGBM-Based Breast Cancer Detection Technique Using Mammography Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Correlation of Histopathology and Radiological Findings Among the Diverse Breast Lesions in a Tertiary Care Centre.Cureus · 2024Article
- Clinicomics-guided distant metastasis prediction in breast cancer via artificial intelligence.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Health Care Accessibility and Breast Cancer Mortality in Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Article
- Breast cancer diagnosis using frequency decomposition of surface motion of actuated breast tissue.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comments on "Evaluation of the Accuracy of Mammography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Suspect Breast Lesions".Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 gene polymorphism and breast cancer risk in women from the Northeastern region of Brazil.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- Whole-Field Continuous Wave Diffuse Reflectance Imaging for Breast Lesion Characterization: Clinical Results.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn breast cancer diagnosis, mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (USG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the imaging methods most used. There is a scarcity of comparative studies that evaluate the accuracy of these methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out through the review of electronic medical records of 32 female patients who underwent breast imaging examinations at a imaging diagnostic center in Teresina, State of Piauí, Brazil. Patients who had these three imaging methods at the time of the evaluation of the same nodule were included. The nodule must have been classified as suspect by the BI-RADS® system in at least one of the methods. Data from each method were compared with the histopathological examination. Statistical analysis used the calculation of proportions in Excel 2010.
resultsMMG showed 56.2%, 87.5%, 81.8%, 66.7% and 71.8% of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy, respectively. USG had 75%, 18.8%, 48%, 42.8% and 46.9% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively. In turn, MRI had 100%, 50%, 66.7%, 100% and 75% of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively.
conclusionThus, MRI and MMG were more accurate in evaluating suspicious breast lumps. MRI had a low specificity, mainly to high breast density, while MMG had also sensitivity limited due to high breast density and USG has been proven to be useful in these patients.
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.