Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36899406›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2023

The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in breast ductal abnormalities.

Bo Wang, Di Yang, Xuan Zhang, XuanTong Gong, Tong Xu, Jie Han, YinPeng Ren, ShuangMei Zou, Lin Li, Yong Wang

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Bo WangDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Di YangDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Xuan ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
XuanTong GongDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Tong XuDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Jie HanDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
YinPeng RenDepartment of Breast Surgery, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
ShuangMei ZouDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Lin LiDepartment of Radiology, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. linlin77216@sina.com.
Yong WangDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. wangyong@cicams.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1371-4921
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

Beijing Hope Run Special Fund of Cancer Foundation of China LC2019A01Key R & D plan of the Ministry of science and technology 2020YFC2006700National Natural Science Foundation of China 81974268
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuctal lesions are an important, often overlooked, and poorly understood issue in breast imaging, which have a risk of underlying malignancy ranging from 5 to 23%. Ultrasonography (US), which has largely replaced galactography or ductography, has become an important imaging method to assess patients with ductal lesions. However, it is difficult to distinguish benign from malignant ductal abnormalities only by ultrasonography, most of which are recommended to be at least in subcategory 4A; these require biopsy according to the ACR BI-RADS®atlas 5th Edition-breast ultrasound. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has been shown to be valuable for differentiating benign from malignant tumors, but its value is unclear in breast ductal lesions. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to explore the characteristics of malignant ductal abnormalities on US and CEUS imaging and the diagnostic value of CEUS in breast ductal abnormalities.

methodsOverall, 82 patients with 82 suspicious ductal lesions were recruited for this prospective study. They were divided into benign and malignant groups according to the pathological results. Morphologic features and quantitative parameters of US and CEUS were analyzed by comparison and multivariate logistic regression to determine the independent risk factors. The diagnostic performance was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

resultsShape, margin, inner echo, size, microcalcification and blood flow classification on US, wash-in time, enhancement intensity, enhancement mode, enhancement scope, blood perfusion defects, peripheral high enhancement and boundary on CEUS were identified as features correlated with malignant ductal lesions. However, multivariate logistic regression showed that only microcalcification (OR = 8.96, P = 0.047) and enhancement scope (enlarged, OR = 27.42, P = 0.018) were independent risk factors for predicting malignant ductal lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and area under the ROC curve of microcalcifications combined with an enlarged enhancement scope were 0.895, 0.886, 0.872, 0.907, 0.890, and 0.92, respectively.

conclusionsMicrocalcification and enlarged enhancement scope are independent factors for predicting malignant ductal lesions. The combined diagnosis can greatly improve the diagnostic performance, indicating that CEUS can be useful in the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions to formulate more appropriate management for ductal lesions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCalcinosisContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyUltrasonography, MammaryContrast MediaBreastContrast-enhanced ultrasonographyDuctal abnormalitiesUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID36899406
PMCPMC10007791
OpenAlexW4323921111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read27
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.