ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2022
Diagnostic performance improvement with combined use of proteomics biomarker assay and breast ultrasound.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Exosome Analysis for Improving Diagnostic Performance of Breast Lesions on Ultrasound: Protocol of a Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- The usefulness of a three-protein signature blood assay (Mastocheck®) for follow-up after breast cancer surgery.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of a three-protein signature in women with suspicious breast lesions: a multicenter prospective trial.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Observational
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the combined use of blood-based 3-protein signature and breast ultrasound (US) for validating US-detected lesions.
methodsFrom July 2011 to April 2020, women who underwent whole-breast US within at least 6 months from sampling period were retrospectively included. Blood-based 3-protein signature (Mastocheck®) value and US findings were evaluated. Following outcome measures were compared between US alone and the combination of Mastocheck® value with US: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and biopsy rate.
resultsAmong the 237 women included, 59 (24.9%) were healthy individuals and 178 (75.1%) cancer patients. Mean size of cancers was 1.2 ± 0.8 cm. Median value of Mastocheck® was significantly different between nonmalignant (- 0.24, interquartile range [IQR] - 0.48, - 0.03) and malignant lesions (0.55, IQR - 0.03, 1.42) (P < .001). Utilizing Mastocheck® value with US increased the AUC from 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61, 0.73) to 0.81 (95% CI 0.75, 0.88; P < .001), and specificity from 35.6 (95% CI 23.4, 47.8) to 64.4% (95% CI 52.2, 76.6; P < .001) without loss in sensitivity. PPV was increased from 82.2 (95% CI 77.1, 87.3) to 89.3% (95% CI 85.0, 93.6; P < .001), and biopsy rate was significantly decreased from 79.3 (188/237) to 72.1% (171/237) (P < .001). Consistent improvements in specificity, PPV, and AUC were observed in asymptomatic women, in women with dense breast, and in those with normal/benign mammographic findings.
conclusionMastocheck® is an effective tool that can be used with US to improve diagnostic specificity and reduce false-positive findings and unnecessary biopsies.
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.