ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Ultrasonic typing and diagnostic value of intravenous leiomyomatosis: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Objective: To propose an ultrasound-based classification system for intravenous leiomyomatosis (IVL) and to describe the sonographic features of each type using standardized terminology, with the aim of facilitating disease recognition and preoperative decision making. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 88 pathologically confirmed IVL cases. Ultrasound findings were compared with intraoperative observations, frozen section pathology, and postoperative pathology. Three experienced sonographers independently described the imaging features using standardized terms. Results: Based on ultrasound findings, IVL was classified into four types: Type I (uterine type, 52/88, 59.1%), Type II (parauterine type, 22/88, 25.0%), Type III (combined uterine and parauterine type, 12/88, 13.6%), and Type IV (extrapelvic type, extending to heart/lungs, 2/88, 2.3%). The preoperative diagnostic accuracy was only 14.8% (14/88), with a misdiagnosis rate of 84.1% (74/88). All 52 Type I lesions were misdiagnosed, most commonly as uterine fibroids (47/74). Characteristic ultrasound signs included slit-like anechoic areas within the lesion (especially when internal blood flow was visible) and vermiform or articulated masses along the uterine/parauterine veins. Conclusion: Ultrasound may play a useful role in the early identification, preoperative typing, and extent assessment of IVL. The proposed four-type classification and characteristic signs provide valuable imaging references for surgical planning and multidisciplinary care. When suspicious signs are detected, extended ultrasound to the iliac veins, inferior vena cava, and heart, along with CT/MRI, may be considered.
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.