ArticleJournal of breast imaging2025
The Utility of Second-Look US to Evaluate Abnormal Molecular Breast Imaging Findings: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of breast imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of US for identifying and characterizing lesions detected on molecular breast imaging (MBI).
methodsA retrospective single-institution review was performed of patients with MBI studies with subsequent US for abnormal MBI findings between January 1, 2015, and September 30, 2021. Medical records, imaging, and histopathology were reviewed. The reference standard was histopathology and/or imaging follow-up. Associations among MBI findings, the presence of an US correlate, and histopathology were evaluated by Fisher exact tests.
resultsThe 32 lesions detected on MBI in 25 patients were evaluated by US, and 19 lesions had an US correlate (19/32, 59%). Mass uptake was more likely to have an US correlate (11/13, 85%; P = .02) than nonmass uptake (7/19, 37%), and mass uptake was more likely to be malignant (5/13, 38%; P = .01). Of the 13 lesions without an US correlate, 5 were evaluated and subsequently biopsied by MRI (2 high-risk lesions and 3 benign lesions). Follow-up MBIs demonstrated stability/resolution for 5 lesions in 4 patients at 6 months or longer. Three patients had no further imaging.
conclusionMass lesions identified on MBI were more likely to have an US correlate and were more likely to be malignant than nonmass lesions.
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.