Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40224988›Full record

ArticleTranslational cancer research2025

Diagnostic test of conventional ultrasonography combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the subcategorization of suspicious Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 breast lesions.

Yindi Zhu, Dian Zhang, Xiao-Na Wang, Yue-Nan Chen, Mei-Fang Pan, Susanna Guerrini, Eugene Ong, Xin-Xian Gu, Li Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Current and future perspectives of molecular breast imaging with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yindi Zhu *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Dian Zhang *Department of Ultrasound, Suzhou Xiangcheng People's Hospital, Suzhou, China.
Xiao-Na WangDepartment of Ultrasound, Suzhou Xiangcheng People's Hospital, Suzhou, China.
Yue-Nan ChenDepartment of Ultrasound, Suzhou Xiangcheng People's Hospital, Suzhou, China.
Mei-Fang PanDepartment of Ultrasound, Suzhou Xiangcheng People's Hospital, Suzhou, China.
Susanna GuerriniUnit of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Medical Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Senese, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Eugene OngLuma Women's Imaging Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Xin-Xian GuDepartment of Ultrasound, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Li JiangDepartment of Ultrasound, Suzhou Xiangcheng People's Hospital, Suzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although conventional ultrasonography (CUS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) play a critical role in cancer detection, diagnosis, and image-guided biopsies, there is no standardized diagnostic approach for the clinical evaluation of suspected Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 breast lesions. This diagnostic test evaluates the complementary roles of CUS and CEUS in addressing limitations of conventional imaging, such as microvascular visualization. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of combining CUS with CEUS in subcategorizing suspicious breast lesions classified as BI-RADS for ultrasound (US-BI-RADS) category 4. Methods: The data of 131 patients with BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions, examined between February 2017 and March 2023, were retrospectively analyzed. All lesions underwent pathological examination following surgery and served as the gold standard for diagnosis. Key features such as lesion margins, echogenicity, size, microcalcification, blood flow distribution via color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), and CEUS characteristics were assessed. CEUS scores were calculated using a five-point scoring system. Stepwise logistic regression was applied to evaluate the odds ratios (ORs) of the lesion characteristics on US and CEUS. The combination of the US-BI-RADS and CEUS scores (termed the CEUS-BI-RADS) was compared to the US-BI-RADS alone, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to determine the diagnostic performance of these methods. Results: Of the 131 lesions, 62 (47.3%) were benign, and 69 (52.7%) were malignant. The multivariate logistic regression identified the primary indicators of malignancy as calcification [OR =1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-2.91, P=0.02], suspicious or abnormal axillary lymph nodes (OR =2.51, 95% CI: 0.59-4.44, P=0.01), obscure margins after enhancement (OR =2.67, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.99, P=0.02), and increased lesion size (OR =4.89, 95% CI: 1.45-8.33, P=0.005). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the US-BI-RADS were 73.9%, 74.2%, 74.0%, 71.9%, and 76.1%, respectively, while those of the CEUS-BI-RADS were 92.8%, 79.0%, 86.3%, 90.7%, and 83.1%, respectively. The areas under the ROC curves for the US-BI-RADS and CEUS-BI-RADS were 0.741 and 0.859, respectively. Conclusions: The CEUS-BI-RADS significantly enhances diagnostic efficacy for BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions, outperforming the US-BI-RADS and could reduce unnecessary biopsies.

Indexed as

breast cancer (BC)Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category 4 (BI-RADS 4)contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)Conventional ultrasonography (CUS)diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID40224988
PMCPMC11985217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.