Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36123521›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2022

2D shear wave elastography in evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer.

Claudio Ventura, Silvia Baldassarre, Federico Cerimele, Laura Pepi, Elisabetta Marconi, Paola Ercolani, Chiara Floridi, Giulio Argalia, Gaia Goteri, Andrea Giovagnoni

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Claudio VenturaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy. claudioventura20@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5070-5784
Silvia BaldassarreDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Federico CerimeleDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Laura PepiSection of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10 , 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Elisabetta MarconiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Paola ErcolaniDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Chiara FloridiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Giulio ArgaliaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Gaia GoteriSection of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10 , 60126, Ancona, Italy.
Andrea GiovagnoniDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche - University Hospital, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the reproducibility of the 2D shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) method and to identify the prognostic factors of breast lesions.

methodsIn this prospective study, 44 female patients were consecutively included from January 2020 to September 2021. All patients showing visible masses at B-mode ultrasound underwent to clinical evaluation, followed by qualitative and quantitative 2D-SWE by two different operators with over 15-year and 2-year experience, respectively. Subsequently, patients underwent to surgical treatment after core needle biopsy. Reproducibility of qualitative and quantitative 2D-SWE was evaluated by Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Clinical, imaging, and histopathological data and 2D-SWE evaluations were analysed with Spearman's rank correlation test.

resultsThe mean age of the patients was 55 years ± 12. The mean histological and ultrasound tumour size of were 23.1 mm ± 13.2 and 17.2 mm ± 10.2, respectively. The interobserver agreement showed a good reproducibility limited to the qualitative evaluation colour maps (Cohen's kappa = 0.603) and to the quantitative evaluation E ratio (ICC = 0.771). Correlation analysis between the ultrasound and 2D-SWE values and the clinical-pathological parameters showed a significant relationship between E ratio and Elston-Ellis grading (P < 0.030) and between tumour size and Elston-Ellis grading (P < 0.041).

conclusionThe 2D-SWE has shown good reproducibility among operators with different experience. It could be a promising tool in the evaluation of some prognostic factors in ultrasound visible breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsElasticity Imaging TechniquesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonography, Mammary2D shear wave elastographyElston–Ellis gradingPrognostic factors

Identifiers

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.