ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound and Mammography in Detecting Breast Cancer in Radiographically Dense Breasts.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundBreast density significantly reduces the sensitivity of mammography, complicating early cancer detection. Ultrasound has emerged as a supplemental imaging modality, especially valuable in women with dense breasts.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy, of ultrasound and mammography in detecting breast cancer among women with radiographically dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories C and D).
methodsThis prospective, comparative observational study was conducted at Family Health Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan, from June 2023 to January 2024. A total of 240 female patients (mean age 48.6 ± 9.2 years; range 30-70) were enrolled. Of these, 142 (59.2%) had heterogeneously dense breasts (BI-RADS C) and 98 (40.8%) had extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS D). Mammography included standard two-view digital imaging (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique), interpreted by radiologists using the BI-RADS classification system.
resultsOut of 240 patients, 68 (28.3%) were histologically confirmed to have breast cancer. Ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 85.3% (58/68) and specificity of 88.4% (152/172), while mammography demonstrated a sensitivity of 61.8% (42/68) and specificity of 91.9% (158/172). Sensitivity analysis by breast density revealed that mammography performed better in heterogeneously dense breasts (77.8% (14/18)) but dropped markedly in extremely dense breasts (43.8% (28/64)). Ultrasound maintained high sensitivity across both groups (86.1% (31/36) in BI-RADS C and 84.4% (27/32) in BI-RADS D). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.89 for ultrasound and 0.78 for mammography.
conclusionIt is concluded that ultrasound significantly improves breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts compared to mammography alone.
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.