ArticleBMC women's health2025
Tumor size and stage assessment accuracy of MRI and ultrasound versus pathological measurements in early breast cancer patients.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. 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.
- Radiofrequency Ablation for Early Stage Breast Cancer as a Potential Alternative to Partial Mastectomy: 5-Year Results from the Multiple-Center, Single-Arm, Phase 3 RAFAELO Study (NCCH1409).Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Trial
- Factors Associated With Preoperative Radiological Tumor Size Underestimation in Clinical T1-2 Breast Cancer Patients.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Ultrasonographic features and inflammatory status associated with tumor size in breast invasive ductal carcinoma.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Preoperative Breast MRI and Histopathology in Breast Cancer: Concordance, Challenges and Emerging Role of CEM and mpMRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate size and stage estimation is important to monitor tumor response and plan further treatment in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To evaluate the accuracy of imaging findings [ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] for tumor size and stage estimations in early breast cancer patients and to elucidate the factors influencing tumor stage assessment.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled consecutive women having pathologically confirmed breast cancer (stage T1/T2, 199 patients and 201 lesions) and preoperative records available for both US and MRI. The concordance between imaging-determined and pathological tumor size and stage was explored. The McNemar's test was conducted to compare the concordance between imaging-determined tumor size and imaging-determined tumor stage. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the factors that influenced the accuracy.
resultsThe concordance between US-determined and pathological tumor size (71.1%) was comparable to MRI-pathology concordance (72.6%). MRI-determined stage concordance (73.6%) was comparable to US-determined stage concordance (69.2%). Tumors with a larger pathological size, were more likely to be underestimated by US or MRI in terms of tumor size and stage (all P < 0.05).
conclusionTumor size and tumor stage concordance did not significantly differ between US and MRI in early breast cancer patients; US could be the first choice for tumor size estimation and tumor staging.
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.