ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Standard and Free-Hand Region-of-Interest Measurements in Strain Elastography for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Masses.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Breast cancer remains a prevalent malignancy globally, necessitating accurate and early diagnostic modalities for improved patient outcomes. Strain elastography (SE) is the first and most frequently used elastographic method developed for breast tumor evaluation. SE is widely utilized due to its real-time capabilities and its ability to provide qualitative and semi-quantitative stiffness information. Objective This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of standard region-of-interest (ROI) strain ratio (SR) measurements (circular SR), qualitative Itoh score, and free-hand ROI (all SR) measurements in elastography for distinguishing between benign and malignant breast masses. Methods A total of 107 breast masses (55 benign, 52 malignant), all histologically confirmed, were analyzed. Measurements included circular SR (standardized), all SR (operator-defined, free-hand), and the Itoh score (qualitative). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare diagnostic performances. Demographic and lesion parameters (age, size, and depth) were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests. Results Both circular SR and all SR measurements were significantly higher in malignant masses (p < 0.0001). Circular SR showed a marginally superior overall diagnostic accuracy with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.843 (sensitivity: 86.5%, specificity: 76.4%, cut-off > 3.30). The all SR had an AUC of 0.822 (sensitivity: 88.5%, specificity: 74.5%, cut-off > 3.20). The qualitative Itoh score was also a highly significant predictor of malignancy (p< 0.0001). Patients with malignant masses were significantly older (p = 0.0008), but lesion size (p = 0.0596) and depth (p = 0.6090) were not significant differentiating factors. Conclusion The standard ROI (circular SR) provides a slightly higher overall diagnostic accuracy, primarily driven by improved specificity. However, the free-hand ROI (all SR) offers higher sensitivity, which is critical in cancer screening. Both quantitative methods, alongside the qualitative Itoh score, are powerful tools for enhancing the diagnostic confidence in breast lesion characterization.
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.