ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Real-time virtual sonography for prone-position breast MRI: technical feasibility and accuracy in locating 125 breast lesions.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates the feasibility and technical success rate of real-time virtual sonography (RVS) for prone contrast-enhanced breast MRI sequences during second-look examinations. Usually, additional supine MRI sequences are acquired for coregistration. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective study was performed in a cohort of female patients who underwent contrast-enhanced prone breast MRI followed by second-look ultrasound for MRI-detected incidental lesions. RVS was used to coregister supine ultrasound and prone MRI data without requiring additional supine MRI studies. Lesion localization success, as well as lesion visibility, fusion quality, and histopathological correlation through ultrasound-guided biopsy, were assessed. A covariate analysis of factors affecting lesion localization was performed.
resultsA total of 103 female patients (mean age 48.3 ± 11.0 years) with 125 MRI-detected breast lesions were included. Of the lesions, 91.2% were successfully localized using RVS, including a high proportion of non-mass enhancements (41.6%). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed in 57.6% of cases, confirming malignancy in 31.9% of those. Covariate analysis identified higher breast volume as the only factor significantly associated with reduced RVS coregistration success (odds ratio 0.993, p = 0.035).
conclusionRVS represents an advanced imaging approach in breast diagnostics, offering a promising solution to overcome the limitations of standalone modalities and potentially enhance diagnostic accuracy. We showed that prone MRI studies may be sufficient for RVS-based coregistration of breast lesions, potentially rendering additional supine MRI acquisitions unnecessary. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study demonstrates that real-time virtual sonography with contrast-enhanced MRI in the prone position is a feasible and effective method for localizing MRI-detected breast lesions on second-look ultrasound without the need for additional supine MRI. This approach can optimize diagnostic workflows and reduce imaging burden while maintaining high localization rates. KEY POINTS: RVS localizes MRI-detected breast lesions in the prone position without requiring additional supine MRI for co-registration. Successful localization was achieved in 91.2%, including 41.6% non-mass enhancements, with higher breast volume as the only detrimental factor. RVS enables accurate lesion localization without supine MRI, streamlining workflows, lowering imaging costs, and improving biopsy access.
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.