ArticleNpj imaging2026
Investigation of feasibility and diagnostic capability of ultrasound-guided photoacoustic tomography for breast surgical margins.
Article in Npj imaging, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We explored the feasibility and preliminary diagnostic capability of ultrasound-guided photoacoustic (US-PA) tomography for breast cancer margin assessment by analysing PA derived lipid, collagen, and hemoglobin distribution patterns. Fifty-three ex-vivo specimens from breast-conserving surgeries were imaged using a handheld US-PA imaging probe illuminated between 700 and 1100 nm across radial margins. Photoacoustic patterns were analysed and assessed for margin involvement using a proprietary algorithm and compared with standard of care against histopathology as the gold standard. US-PA imaging demonstrated 95.45% sensitivity and 76.33% specificity for margin assessment with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 34.43.% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.23%. Clinical standard of care showed 40.91% sensitivity, 88.17% specificity, 31.03% PPV and 91.98% NPV. Analysis of false positives revealed that 75% occurred within 5 mm of the margin, with 35% within 2 mm. Overall, US-PA imaging demonstrated superior sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV compared to standard approaches, supporting its potential to reduce missed positive margins. The high false positive rate, primarily due to close margins and tissue compression effects, reflects a conservative classification strategy. Detection of biochemical markers, particularly collagen highlights potential of US-PA in enhancing margin assessment accuracy, although further refinement is needed to improve specificity.
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.