ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2025
The application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and MicroFlow Imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2025. 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.
- Sustained nitric oxide production by engineered E. coli remodels the tumor microenvironment and potentiates immunotherapy.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Enhanced differentiation of breast lesions through integration of microvascular flow imaging and machine learning algorithms.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Synergistic terahertz platforms for precision oncology.Theranostics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) plus MicroFlow Imaging (CEUS-MFI), MicroFlow Imaging (MFI) alone, and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.
methodsA total of 116 patients with 116 breast lesions categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 were enrolled in this prospective study. CEUS-MFI, MFI, and CDFI were used to evaluate the microvascular morphology and distribution types of breast lesions. Pathological results were considered the gold standard.
resultsCompared with conventional CDFI and MFI, the CEUS-MFI technique can reveal microvasculature and distribution types at a higher resolution in breast masses. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-MFI were 96.3%, 80.6%, and 91.4%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MFI were 87.5%, 75.0%, and 83.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CDFI were 58.8%, 72.2%, and 62.9%, respectively. The accuracy was significantly different between CEUS-MFI and MFI (P = 0.024), and the accuracy was significantly different between CEUS-MFI and CDFI (P = 0.000). US BI-RADS 4A masses were downgraded based on CEUS-MFI features without any malignancy missed, with the biopsy rate decreasing from 100% (29/29) to 31.0% (9/29).
conclusionCEUS-MFI provides improved diagnostic efficacy for breast lesions. The CEUS-MFI technique can be used as an effective supplement to conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of breast tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39954185What 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.