ReviewBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2025
Preoperative Imaging Assessment of Lymphovascular Invasion in Breast Cancer: Current Evidence, Technical Advances, and Future Directions.
Review in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review Article: Biomarkers in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Towards Precision Medicine.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Review
- Decoding Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer: The Evolution From Radiomics to Topological Quantification for Predicting Lymphovascular Invasion.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in breast cancer is a pivotal prognostic factor that directly influences patient survival outcomes and guides the formulation of individualized treatment strategies, such as the selection of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens or the extent of surgical intervention. Accurate preoperative assessment of LVI status is therefore indispensable for optimizing clinical decision-making and improving patient management. This review systematically synthesizes the latest advancements in imaging techniques for LVI evaluation in breast cancer, including conventional ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), elastography, mammography (digital and contrast-enhanced), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, encompassing DCE-MRI, DWI, and novel functional sequences like IVIM), and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnostic tools (radiomics and deep learning). A critical analysis of these modalities reveals distinct strengths and limitations: for instance, ultrasound offers broad accessibility and real-time imaging but exhibits lower sensitivity (60-75%) for subtle LVI lesions compared to MRI (sensitivity 78-90%), which provides superior soft tissue contrast but is constrained by higher cost and longer scan times. Radiomics models, while demonstrating promising AUC values (0.74-0.896) in predicting LVI, suffer from inconsistencies in feature extraction protocols and limited external validation. Additionally, this review highlights key knowledge gaps, such as the lack of standardized imaging parameters for LVI assessment across centers and the underrepresentation of rare breast cancer subtypes (eg, inflammatory breast cancer) in existing studies. We emphasize the clinical urgency of addressing these limitations-including reducing false-positive rates caused by benign vascular proliferations and false negatives from obscured lesions-to enhance diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, we propose targeted future directions, such as the development of multicenter, prospective trials to validate AI-integrated multimodal imaging workflows and the establishment of consensus guidelines for imaging protocol standardization, ultimately aiming to translate technical advancements into improved patient outcomes.
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.