ArticleKorean journal of radiology2024
Automated Versus Handheld Breast Ultrasound for Evaluating Axillary Lymph Nodes in Patients With Breast Cancer.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of automated breast ultrasound and hand-held breast ultrasound in preoperative evaluation of early-stage breast cancer: a multicenter prospective study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Association of Breast Tissue Composition on Preoperative Automated Breast Ultrasound With Accuracy of Cancer Multiplicity Evaluation and Recurrence-Free Survival in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Prediction model of axillary lymph node status using an automated breast volume ultrasound radiomics nomogram in early breast cancer with negative axillary ultrasound.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Ultrasound Findings After Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy: Cutaneous, Pleural, Pulmonary, and Cardiac Changes.Korean journal of radiology · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAutomated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is a relevant imaging technique for early breast cancer diagnosis and is increasingly being used as a supplementary tool for mammography. This study compared the performance of ABUS and handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in detecting and characterizing the axillary lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of women with recently diagnosed early breast cancer (≤ T2) who underwent both ABUS and HHUS examinations for axilla (September 2017-May 2018). ABUS and HHUS findings were compared using pathological outcomes as reference standards. Diagnostic performance in predicting any axillary LN metastasis and heavy nodal-burden metastases (i.e., ≥ 3 LNs) was evaluated. The ABUS-HHUS agreement for visibility and US findings was calculated.
resultsThe study included 377 women (53.1 ± 11.1 years). Among 385 breast cancers in 377 patients, 101 had axillary LN metastases and 30 had heavy nodal burden metastases. ABUS identified benign-looking or suspicious axillary LNs (average, 1.4 ± 0.8) in 246 axillae (63.9%, 246/385). According to the per-breast analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of ABUS in predicting axillary LN metastases were 43.6% (44/101), 95.1% (270/284), 75.9% (44/58), 82.6% (270/327), and 81.6% (314/385), respectively. The corresponding results for HHUS were 41.6% (42/101), 95.1% (270/284), 75.0% (42/56), 82.1% (270/329), and 81.0% (312/385), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of ABUS (
conclusionAlthough ABUS showed limited sensitivity in diagnosing axillary LN metastasis in early breast cancer, it was still useful as the performance was comparable to that of HHUS.
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.