ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2026
Dynamic anatomical ultrasound assessment for breast lesions: a prospective study of diagnostic performance.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether a dynamic ultrasound approach, termed anatomical scanning and interpretation, improves diagnostic performance in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions compared with conventional static-image BI-RADS assessment.
methodsThis prospective study evaluated 102 breast lesions (33 masses, 41 non-masses, and 28 distortions) classified as BI-RADS 3, 4a, or 4b. Fourteen ultrasound technologists underwent dedicated training in dynamic anatomical scanning and interpretation. Each lesion was evaluated using real-time video clips and independently categorized as requiring follow-up or biopsy. A subsequent physician-technologist consensus was performed. With histopathology as the reference standard, performance was assessed using ROC analysis, with AUC comparisons performed using the DeLong test.
resultsAmong 102 lesions (58 benign, 44 malignant), individual technologist interpretation with dynamic imaging significantly improved diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.748, p = 0.0191) over static BI-RADS assessment (AUC = 0.619). Physician-technologist consensus showed further significant improvement (AUC = 0.865, p < 0.0001). In subgroup analysis, dynamic interpretation outperformed static assessment for masses (AUC = 0.849, p = 0.0036), but not for non-mass lesions (AUC = 0.794) or distortions (AUC = 0.618). In contrast, physician-technologist consensus interpretation demonstrated superior performance compared with static assessment across all lesion types: masses (AUC = 0.879, p < 0.0001), non-mass lesions (AUC = 0.910, p = 0.0005), and distortions (AUC = 0.838, p = 0.0432).
conclusionDynamic anatomical scanning and interpretation significantly improve diagnostic performance over conventional static BI-RADS assessment. For non-mass lesions and architectural distortions, anatomical interpretation based on consensus between the physician and the technologist is considered essential to achieve optimal diagnostic accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42360670What 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.