ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Automated breast US as the primary screening test for breast cancer among East Asian women aged 40-49 years: a multicenter prospective study.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated with False-Positive Marks and False-Negative Cancers on Automated Breast Ultrasound Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Detection System.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Supplemental automated breast ultrasound in negative screening mammography: early-stage cancer detection in dense breasts with limited yield in non-dense breasts.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of AI-CAD Software for Breast Cancer Detection in Automated Breast Ultrasound.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer Screening in Asian Countries: Epidemiology, Screening Practices, Outcomes, Challenges, and Future Directions.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in Resource-Limited Settings: Current Practice and Future Directions.Cancers · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of screening ABUS as the primary screening test for breast cancer among Korean women aged 40-49 years.
methodsThis prospective, multicenter study included asymptomatic Korean women aged 40-49 years from three academic centers between February 2017 and October 2019. Each participant underwent ABUS without mammography, and the ABUS images were interpreted at each hospital with double-reading by two breast radiologists. Biopsy and at least 1 year of follow-up was considered the reference standard. Diagnostic performance of ABUS screening and subgroup analyses according to patient and tumor characteristics were evaluated.
resultsReference standard data were available for 959 women. The recall rate was 9.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.9%, 11.7%; 94 of 959 women) and the cancer detection yield was 5.2 per 1000 women (95% CI: -0.6, 11.1; 5 of 959 women). There was only one interval cancer. The sensitivity was 83.3% (95% CI: 53.5%, 100%; 5 of 6 cancers) and the specificity was 90.7% (95% CI: 88.8%, 92.5%; 864 of 95. women). The positive predictive values of biopsies performed (PPV
conclusionIn East Asia, screening automated breast US may be an alternative to screening mammography for detecting breast cancers in women aged 40-49 years. KEY POINTS: • Automated breast US screening for breast cancer in asymptomatic women aged 40-49 is effective with 5.2 per 1000 cancer detection yield. • Women with heterogeneous background echotexture had a higher recall rate and lower specificity. • Women with body mass index < 25 kg/m
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.