ArticleScientific reports2021
Quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-cystic breast lesions using external perfusion software.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer via quantitative analysis of VueBox ultrasound contrast-enhanced imaging combined with multimodal feature fusion.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- A 2.5D multichannel deep learning model using contrast-enhanced ultrasound for predicting malignancy in breast nodules: a two-center study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Integrative multimodal ultrasound and radiomics for early prediction of neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer: a clinical study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- The application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and MicroFlow Imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2025Article
- Development of a nomogram for predicting malignancy in BI-RADS 4 breast lesions using contrast-enhanced ultrasound and shear wave elastography parameters.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of tumor microvasculature with 3D ultrasound localization microscopy based on 2D matrix array.European radiology · 2024Article
- The utility of quantifying the orientation of breast masses in ultrasound imaging.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Use of a handheld system for interventional ultrasound with puncture and biopsy in an in vitro liver model.Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation · 2024Article
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the preoperative prediction of pathological characteristics in breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Ultrasound and Nanomedicine for Cancer-Targeted Drug Delivery: Screening, Cellular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of breast tumors: an initial experience.Acta radiologica open · 2022Article
- Differentiation Between Granulomatous Lobular Mastitis and Breast Cancer Using Quantitative Parameters on Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Ultrasound super-resolution imaging for differential diagnosis of breast masses.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Application of Multimodal Ultrasound Combined With BI-RADS in Classification and Diagnosis of Non-Mass Breast Lesions.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCUArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this present clinical pilot study is the display of typical perfusion results in patients with solid, non-cystic breast lesions. The lesions were characterized using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with (i) time intensity curve analyses (TIC) and (ii) parametric color maps. The 24 asymptomatic patients included were genetically tested for having an elevated risk for breast cancer. At a center of early detection of familial ovary and breast cancer, those patients received annual MRI and grey-scale ultrasound. If lesions remained unclear or appeared even suspicious, those patients also received CEUS. CEUS was performed after intravenous application of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles. Digital DICOM cine loops were continuously stored for one minute in PACS (picture archiving and communication system). Perfusion images and TIC analyses were calculated off-line with external perfusion software (VueBox). The lesion diameter ranged between 7 and 15 mm (mean 11 ± 3 mm). Five hypoechoic irregular lesions were scars, 6 lesions were benign and 12 lesions were highly suspicious for breast cancer with irregular enhancement at the margins and a partial wash out. In those 12 cases, histopathology confirmed breast cancer. All the suspicious lesions were correctly identified visually. For the perfusion analysis only Peak Enhancement (PE) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) added more information for correctly identifying the lesions. Typical for benign lesions is a prolonged contrast agent enhancement with lower PE and prolonged wash out, while scars are characterized typically by a reduced enhancement in the center. No differences (p = 0.428) were found in PE in the center of benign lesions (64.2 ± 28.9 dB), malignant lesions (88.1 ± 93.6 dB) and a scar (40.0 ± 17.0 dB). No significant differences (p = 0.174) were found for PE values at the margin of benign lesions (96.4 ± 144.9 dB), malignant lesions (54.3 ± 86.2 dB) or scar tissue (203.8 ± 218.9 dB). Significant differences (p < 0.001) were found in PE of the surrounding tissue when comparing benign lesions (33.6 ± 25.2 dB) to malignant lesions (15.7 ± 36.3 dB) and scars (277.2 ± 199.9 dB). No differences (p = 0.821) were found in AUC in the center of benign lesions (391.3 ± 213.7), malignant lesions (314.7 ± 643.9) and a scar (213.1 ± 124.5). No differences (p = 0.601) were found in AUC values of the margin of benign lesions (313.3 ± 372.8), malignant lesions (272.6 ± 566.4) or scar tissue (695.0 ± 360.6). Significant differences (p < 0.01) were found in AUC of the surrounding tissue for benign lesions (151.7 ± 127.8), malignant lesions (177.9 ± 1345.6) and scars (1091 ± 693.3). There were no differences in perfusion evaluation for mean transit time (mTT), rise time (RT) and time to peak (TTP) when comparing the center to the margins and the surrounding tissue. The CEUS perfusion parameters PE and AUC allow a very good assessment of the risk of malignant breast lesions and thus a downgrading of BI-RADS 4 lesions. The use of the external perfusion software (VueBox, Bracco, Milan, Italy) did not lead to any further improvement in the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions and does appears not to have any additional diagnostic value in breast lesions.
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.