ArticleGland surgery2020
Ultrasonographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 219 lesions.
Article in Gland surgery, 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Based Ultrasound Nomogram for Differentiating Invasive from Non-Invasive Breast Cancer Masses.Cancers · 2025Article
- Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by US-guided core needle biopsy: clinical, pathological and US features associated with upgrading to malignancy.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Exploring the Evolution of Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of Conventional and Emerging Modalities.Cureus · 2025Review
- Integrating radiomics into predictive models for low nuclear grade DCIS using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Usefulness of color Doppler and strain elastography adjunctive to B-mode ultrasonography in the diagnosis of non-mass abnormalities of the breast: results of the BC-07 multicenter study of 385 cases.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2025Article
- Differentiation between invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ by combining intratumoral and peritumoral ultrasound radiomics.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Article
- Ultrasound deep learning radiomics and clinical machine learning models to predict low nuclear grade, ER, PR, and HER2 receptor status in pure ductal carcinomaGland surgery · 2024Article
- The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine guidelines on non-mass abnormalities of the breast.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2023Review
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
backgroundThe purpose of this paper is to clarify the ultrasonographic features and classification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to evaluate the ability of ultrasonography in the prediction of DCIS.
methodsThe clinical data, gray-scale ultrasound images and pathological results of 219 DCIS lesions that detected in 203 consecutive patients who underwent ultrasonography and surgery in our hospital from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 were collected retrospectively. Ultrasonographic features and classification of DCIS were summarized, and the accuracy of ultrasonography in predicting different ultrasonographic findings of DCIS were compared.
resultsAmong the 219 DCIS lesions, 91 (41.6%) presented as mass-like lesions and 128 (58.4%) were non-mass-like lesions. For the 91 mass-like DCIS lesions, 79 were hypoechoic solid masses, 12 were cystic-solid structures. For the 128 non-mass-like DCIS lesions, 114 were hypoechoic areas, 10 were ductal dilatation accompanied with intraductal solid components, and 4 were multiple punctate echogenic foci only. The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for the 219 DCIS lesions was 81.7% (179/219). The diagnostic accuracy of mass-like DCIS lesions was 90.1% (82/91), which was significantly higher than that in non-mass-like DCIS lesions [75.8% (97/128), P=0.007]. The diagnostic accuracy of hypoechoic solid masses was significantly higher than those of the other ultrasonographic findings (P=0.002). Ducts abnormalities were detected in 45 (20.5%) lesions and punctate echogenic foci in 134 (61.2%) lesions. The diagnostic accuracy of lesions with ducts abnormalities was 93.3% (42/45), which was significantly higher than that in lesions without ducts abnormalities [78.7% (137/174), P=0.024]. The diagnostic accuracy of lesions with punctate echogenic foci was 92.5% (124/134), which was significantly higher than that in lesions without punctate echogenic foci [64.7% (55/85), P=0.000].
conclusionsDCIS lesions can effectively be recognized as mass-like lesions and non-mass-like lesions by ultrasound. Hypoechoic areas and hypoechoic solid masses were the most common ultrasonographic features of DCIS. Ducts abnormalities and punctate echogenic foci were helpful for the diagnosis of DCIS.
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.