ArticleEuropean radiology2021
The diagnostic performance of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound and mammography in symptomatic outpatient women: a multicenter, cross-sectional study in China.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct deep learning analysis of three-dimensional automated breast ultrasound videos with reading mode optimization for breast cancer diagnosis.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- A nomogram for diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 breast nodules based on three-dimensional volume ultrasound.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Downgrading Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories in ultrasound using strain elastography and computer-aided diagnosis system: a multicenter, prospective study.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of supplemental three-dimensional breast ultrasound in the work-up of BI-RADS 0 screening recalls.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- 3-D breast nodule detection on automated breast ultrasound using faster region-based convolutional neural networks and U-Net.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The Potential of Adding Mammography to Handheld Ultrasound or Automated Breast Ultrasound to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in BI-RADS Ultrasound Category 4a: A Multicenter Hospital-Based Study in China.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Alcohol and breast cancer.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2023Review
- A Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Handheld Ultrasound Examination (HHUS) or Automated Ultrasound Examination (ABVS) in Women with Dense Breast.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The diagnostic performance of ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis system for distinguishing breast masses: a prospective multicenter study.European radiology · 2022Article
- The added value of an artificial intelligence system in assisting radiologists on indeterminate BI-RADS 0 mammograms.European radiology · 2022Article
- Improved Inception V3 method and its effect on radiologists' performance of tumor classification with automated breast ultrasound system.Gland surgery · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the FUSION-X-US-II prototype to combine automated breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis.European radiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for High-Risk Women in Beijing, China: A Real-World Population-Based Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for breast cancer by comparing it to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG).
methodsA multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted between February 2016 and March 2017 in five tertiary hospitals in China, and 1922 women aged 30-69 years old were recruited. Women aged 30-39 years (group A) underwent ABUS and HHUS, and women aged 40-69 (group B) underwent additional MG. Images were interpreted using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). All BI-RADS 4 and 5 cases were confirmed pathologically. Sensitivities and specificities of all modalities were compared.
resultsThere were 83 cancers in 677 women in group A and 321 cancers in 1245 women in group B. In the whole study population, the sensitivities of ABUS and HHUS were 92.8% (375/404) and 96.3% (389/404), and the specificities were 93.0% (1411/1518) and 89.6% (1360/1518), respectively. ABUS had a significantly higher specificity to HHUS (p < 0.01), while HHUS had higher sensitivity (p = 0.01). In group B, the sensitivities of ABUS, HHUS, and MG were 93.5% (300/321), 96.6% (310/321), and 87.9% (282/321). The specificities were 93.0% (859/924), 89.9% (831/924), and 91.6% (846/924). ABUS had significantly higher sensitivity (p = 0.02) and comparable specificity compared with MG (p = 0.14).
conclusionABUS increased sensitivity and had similar specificity compared with mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Additionally, ABUS has comparable performance to HHUS in women aged 30-69 years old. ABUS or HHUS is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • In breast cancer diagnosis settings, automated breast ultrasound has a higher cancer detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity than mammography, especially in women with dense breasts. • Compared with handheld ultrasound, automated breast ultrasound has higher specificity, lower sensitivity, and comparable diagnostic performance. • Automated breast ultrasound is a suitable modality for breast cancer diagnosis, and may have a potential indication for its further use in the breast cancer early detection.
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.