Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33796824›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2021

Second Look Ultrasonography-Guided Breast Biopsy with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Confirmation by Intralesional Contrast Injection.

Yasemin Kayadibi, Fahrettin Kılıç, Ravza Yılmaz, Mehmet Velidedeoğlu, Tülin Öztürk, Deniz Esin Tekcan, Emel Ure Esmerer, Fatih Aydoğan, Mehmet Halit Yılmaz

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of breast health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic Value of Axillary Ultrasound, MRI, andEuropean journal of breast health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Yasemin KayadibiClinic of Radiology, Gaziosmanpaşa Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-1590-5382
Fahrettin KılıçDepartment of Radiology, Kuanta Biosibernetik Health Theraphies, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-8877-6118
Ravza YılmazDepartment of Radiology, İstanbul University İstanbul Medical Faculty, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-8661-6751
Mehmet VelidedeoğluDepartment of General Surgery, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-0239-1717
Tülin ÖztürkDepartment of Pathology, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-6910-1131
Deniz Esin TekcanClinic of Radiology, Acıbadem Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-6545-5757
Emel Ure EsmererClinic of Radiology, Esenler Women and Children Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-8273-976X
Fatih AydoğanClinic of General Surgery, Memorial Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-2103-9110
Mehmet Halit YılmazClinic of Radiology, Memorial Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-0008-318X
Acıbadem University · TRIstanbul Memorial Hospital · TRIstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa · TRGaziosmanpaşa Taksim Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRIstanbul University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to introduce an alternative pre-biopsy confirmation technique that combines sonography-guided intra-lesional contrast injections and single non-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pulse sequence in order to identify sonographic correlates of incidentally detected breast MRI lesions which were occult on primary ultrasonography (USG) and mammography examination. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom May 2014 through May 2015, a total of 37 incidental breast lesions of 37 patients, which were detected by breast MRI, were evaluated with targeted second look ultrasound (SLUS). The suspected lesion on USG was marked with a gadolinium-based contrast agent under USG guidance. After a single non-enhanced T1 weighted control MR sequence, positively correlated lesions with initial MRI were sampled by USG guided core biopsy.

resultsOf the 37 lesions evaluated, 32 (86%) lesions showed a correlation between MRI and SLUS findings. On SLUS core biopsy, there were eight (25%) malignant and 11 (34.4%) high-risk lesions among these 32 cases with correlated MRI findings; while the remaining 13 (40.6%) cases had benign histopathology. Eleven (34.4%) of the SLUS-discovered lesions were focus, 11 (34.4%) were non-mass enhancements, and the remaining 10 (31.2%) were mass lesions. Of the five lesions (13.5%) that showed no correlations on MRI and SLUS examinations, four were non-mass enhancements and one was focus.

conclusionSLUS represents a method for identifying MRI-detected lesions and provides a bridge to ultrasound-guided biopsy for histopathological diagnosis. There is a need for confirmation of biopsies to avoid false negative results. We describe a cheap, safe, and easy-to-apply USG-guided pre-biopsy lesions marking method in order to ensure definite correlation.

Indexed as

Breast cancerimage-guided biopsymagnetic resonanceultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID33796824
PMCPMC8006787
OpenAlexW3045607531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.