Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38192524›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

The Accuracy of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Tools.

Batool S Alotaibi, Rahaf Alghamdi, Sadeem Aljaman, Reem A Hariri, Lama S Althunayyan, Batool F AlSenan, Areej M Alnemer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Batool S AlotaibiMedicine and Surgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Rahaf AlghamdiMedicine and Surgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Sadeem AljamanMedicine and Surgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Reem A HaririMedicine and Surgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Lama S AlthunayyanMedicine and Surgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Batool F AlSenanMedicine and Surgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Areej M AlnemerPathology, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Breast cancer (BC) remains a significant health concern, leading to illness and death among women globally. It is essential to detect BC early using imaging techniques that accurately reflect the final pathology, guiding suitable intervention strategies. Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between radiological findings and histopathological results in BC cases. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of breast core needle biopsies (CNBs) in women over a six-year period (2017-2022) at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. The pathological diagnoses were compared with the findings from preceding radiological investigations. We also compared the tumour sizes in the resection specimens with their radiological counterparts. Results A total of 641 cases were included in the study. Ultrasound (US), mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) yielded diagnostic accuracies of 85%, 77.9%, and 86.9%, respectively. MRI had the highest sensitivity at 72.2%, while US had the lowest at 61%. MRI provided the best agreement with the final resected tumor size. By contrast, mammography tended to overestimate the size (41.9%), and US most frequently underestimated it (67.7%). The connection between basal-like molecular subtypes and the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS)-5 classifications was only statistically significant for MRI (p = 0.04). The luminal subtype was more likely to show speculation in mammography. Meanwhile, BIRADS-4 revealed a considerable number of benign pathologies across all the three modalities. Conclusions MRI demonstrated the highest accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) for diagnosing and estimating the tumor size. Mammography outperformed US in terms of sensitivity and yielded the highest negative predictive value (NPV). US, meanwhile, offered superior specificity, PPV, and accuracy. Therefore, combining these diagnostic methods could yield significant benefits.

Indexed as

breast cancer pathologybreast diseasemagnetic resonance imaging (mri)mammographyradiological modalitiesultrasound (us)

Identifiers

PMID38192524
PMCPMC10772305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.