ArticleCureus2023
Utility of Ultrasound Imaging Features in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a Combined 2D-US and CDUS Nomogram for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A Retrospective Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Application of an artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostic system for breast ultrasound: a prospective study.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- AI-Powered Synthesis of Structured Multimodal Breast Ultrasound Reports Integrating Radiologist Annotations and Deep Learning Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Role of Breast Ultrasound in Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Currently, breast cancer (BC) is considered one of the most prevalent cancer worldwide in women and represents a global health challenge. Early diagnosis is the keystone in the management of BC patients. This study aims to assess the utility of ultrasonography (US) features of malignancy in the diagnosis of BC. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study involved the electronic records of 326 female patients who were diagnosed with BC. A cross-tabulation test was performed to identify the association between the presence of each US feature (yes/no), and the final US diagnosis (benign/malignant). The strength of association of each feature was measured using the odds ratio (OR) which was assumed to be significant when > 1, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The mean age of the female patients involved in this study was 45.36 ±12.16 years old (range, 17-90 years). Cross-tabulation test showed a significant association between the malignancy tumor and the irregular shape of the lesion (p < 0.001, OR=7.162, CI 2.726-18.814), non-circumscribed margins (p < 0.001, OR = 9.031, CI 3.200-25.489), tissue distortion (p < 0.001, OR = 18.095, CI 5.944-55.091), and the lymph node enlargement (p < 0.001, OR = 5.705, CI 2.332-13.960). Conclusion US imaging features of malignancy have a high sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of the BC. However, the specificity of breast US imaging features is much lower because of the overlapping features in benign and malignant breast lesions. Breast lesions with an irregular shape, not circumscribed irregular or spiculated margins, hypo-echogenicity, tissue distortion, and those with lymphadenopathy have the highest likelihood of malignancy despite the low specificity. US is a highly valuable, safe, and affordable imaging modality with high diagnostic accuracy for BC.
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.