ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Conventional ultrasound combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound: could it be helpful for the diagnosis of thoracic wall recurrence after mastectomy?
Article in European radiology, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing prognostic accuracy in invasive breast cancer by combining contrast-enhanced ultrasound and clinical data: a multicenter retrospective study.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- The treatment response evaluation through the combination of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and squamous cell carcinoma antigen in cervical cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound to predict malignant upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasia.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a predictive model using conventional ultrasound combined with CEUS to identify thoracic wall recurrence after mastectomy.
methodsA total of 162 women with pathologically confirmed thoracic wall lesions (benign 79, malignant 83; median size 1.9 cm, ranging 0.3-8.0 cm) underwent a mastectomy and were checked by both conventional ultrasound and CEUS and were retrospectively included. Logistic regression models of B-mode ultrasound (US) and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) with or without CEUS were established to assess the thoracic wall recurrence after mastectomy. The established models were validated by bootstrap resampling. The models were evaluated using calibration curve. The clinical benefit of models were assessed using decision curve analysis.
resultsThe area under the receiver characteristic was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.88) for model using US alone, 0.898 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.94) for model using US combined with CDFI, and 0.959 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.98) for model using US combined with both CDFI and CEUS. The diagnostic performance of the US combined with CDFI was significantly higher than that of the US alone (0.823 vs 0.898, p = 0.002) but significantly lower than that of the US combined with both CDFI and CEUS (0.959 vs 0.898, p < 0.001). Moreover, the unnecessary biopsy rate of the US combined with both CDFI and CEUS was significantly lower than that of the US combined with CDFI (p = 0.037).
conclusionsCompared to B-mode ultrasound and CDFI, CEUS improves the diagnostic performance to evaluate thoracic wall recurrence after mastectomy. KEY POINTS: • CUES is an effective supplementary method for US in the diagnosis of thoracic wall recurrence after mastectomy. • CEUS combined with both US and CDFI can significantly improve the accuracy of diagnosis of thoracic wall recurrence after mastectomy. • CEUS combined with both US and CDFI can reduce the rate of unnecessary biopsy of thoracic wall lesions after mastectomy.
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.