ArticleBMC medical imaging2022
Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic value of ultrasound Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System for disease-free survival in early-stage breast cancer: a retrospective study (2011-2018).Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Triple-Negative Inflammatory Metaplastic Breast Cancer Presenting as a Non-Mass Lesion.Journal of medical cases · 2026Article
- Progress in Ultrasound Research on Non-Mass Breast Lesions: Definition, Classification, and Differential Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Efficacy of ultrasonography and mammography in detecting features of breast cancer.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics based on automated breast volume scanner for predicting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Nomogram based on multimodal ultrasound features for evaluating breast nonmass lesions: a single center study.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Intelligent scoring system based on dynamic optical breast imaging for early detection of breast cancer.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Quantitative evaluation of Kaiser score in diagnosing breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for patients with high-grade background parenchymal enhancement.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare multiple breast cancer screening methods for evaluating breast non-mass-like lesions (NMLs), and investigate new best screening method for breast non-mass-like lesions and the value of the lexicon of ACR BI-RADS in NML evaluation.
methodsThis retrospective study examined 253 patients aged 24-68 years who were diagnosed with breast NMLs and described the lexicon of ACR BI-RADS from April 2017 to December 2019. All lesions were evaluated by HHUS, MG, and ABUS to determine BI-RADS category, and underwent pathological examination within six months or at least 2 years of follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) of MG, HHUS and ABUS in the prediction of malignancy were compared. Independent risk factors for malignancy were assessed using non-conditional logistic regression.
resultsHHUS, MG and ABUS findings significantly differed between benign and malignant breast NML, including internal echo, hyperechoic spot, peripheral blood flow, internal blood flow, catheter change, peripheral change, coronal features of ABUS, and structural distortion, asymmetry, and calcification in MG. ABUS is superior to MG and HHUS in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, as well as in evaluating the necessity of biopsy and accuracy in identifying malignancy. MG was superior to HHUS in specificity, PPV, and accuracy in evaluating the need for biopsy.
conclusionsABUS was superior to HHUS and MG in evaluating the need for biopsy in breast NMLs. Compared to each other, HHUS and MG had their own relative advantages. Internal blood flow, calcification, and coronal plane feature was independent risk factors in NMLs Management, and different screening methods had their own advantages in NML management. The lexicon of ACR BI-RADS could be used not only in the evaluation of mass lesions, but also in the evaluation of NML.
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.