ArticleGland surgery2024
A preliminary study on the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and micro-flow imaging for detecting blood flow signals in breast cancer patients.
Article in Gland surgery, 2024. 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.
- Breast Tumor Blood Flow, Disease Progression, and Treatment Response: The Role of Exercise.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a screening model for benign and malignant breast masses based on S-Detect and microvascular flow imaging.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of micro-flow imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in monitoring microwave ablation of papillary thyroid carcinoma: efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The distribution and morphology of mass microvessels could affect the diagnostic accuracy of breast cancer (BC). The aim of our study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and micro-flow imaging (CEUS-MFI), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) in the assessment of mass microvasculature. Methods: A total of 106 patients with 106 breast masses categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 were enrolled in our prospective study. CEUS-MFI, CEUS and conventional CDFI were used to estimate the microvascular morphology and distribution types of breast lesions, respectively. Pathological results were considered the gold standard. Results: CEUS-MFI technique applied in microvascular morphology and distribution types resulted in a higher resolution in breast lesions than the CEUS and CDFI techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-MFI were 94.4%, 85.3%, and 91.5%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS were 88.9%, 82.4%, and 86.8%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the CDFI were 61.1%, 76.5% and 66.0%, respectively. There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CEUS (P=0.01). There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CDFI (P<0.001). Conclusions: This study supports CEUS-MFI is a new and promising imaging method for visualizing microvasculature in breast masses. CEUS-MFI improves the diagnostic capacity 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.