Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40861699›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

High-Resolution Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Clinical Implications.

Aeimen Khalid, Muhammad Ahmad Mukhtar, Amna Mukhtar, Rubina Mukhtar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Aeimen KhalidGeneral Medicine, Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, GBR.
Muhammad Ahmad MukhtarGeneral Medicine, York District Hospital, York, GBR.
Amna MukhtarInternal Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, HUN.
Rubina MukhtarRadiology, MINAR (Multan Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy) Cancer Hospital, Multan, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to explore the application of high-resolution ultrasound (HR US) in breast evaluation, with a focus on its sensitivity and specificity for the accurate characterization of breast lesions and the early detection of breast cancer. Materials and methods All patients presenting to the breast imaging department of MINAR Cancer Hospital, Multan, Pakistan, with clinically palpable breast lesions were included in this prospective cross-sectional study conducted from January 2023 to December 2023. Results In total, 6150 patients were registered. Of these, 242 were found to have different breast lesions on mammography and HR US. Lesions were categorized on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scale. All were subjected to biopsies for histopathology to confirm the final diagnosis. Results were compared with those of histopathology. The true negative rate for malignancy in BI-RADS 2 and 3 lesions is 98.8% and 80%, respectively. The true positive rate for malignancy in BI-RADS 5 lesions is 99.14%, whereas for BI-RADS 4 lesions, it is only 12.5%. Specificity for BI-RADS 4 and 5 is 83.33% and 99.13%, respectively. Sensitivity for BI-RADS 2 and 3 lesions is 98.7% and 30%. Conclusion HR US has significant value in the characterization of breast lesions and holds particular importance in differentiating benign from malignant lesions, especially in situations where mammography is either unavailable or contraindicated. Additionally, it aids in the selection of patients for invasive procedures such as biopsies.

Indexed as

breastcancerhigh-resolution ultrasoundnegative predictive valuepositive predictive valuesensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID40861699
PMCPMC12375396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.