ArticleBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2026
Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Ultrasound Elastography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer.
Article in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined ultrasound elastography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with breast cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study. We designated 60 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between August 2021 and November 2023 as the case group, and selected 40 patients diagnosed with benign breast lesions during the same period as the control group. Both the case and control groups underwent multimodal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. Pathological findings served as the gold standard, and a blinded evaluation was conducted to assess the diagnostic efficacy of multimodal ultrasound (strain and shear wave), MRI, and combined diagnosis for breast cancer. Results: Based on the pathological findings as the gold standard, multimodal ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity of 55.00% and specificity of 83.33% for the diagnosis of breast cancer, MRI exhibited a sensitivity of 73.17% and specificity of 81.67% and the combined diagnosis demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.80% and specificity of 96.67%. The diagnostic accuracy and specificity of combined detection exceeded those of any single detection (P<0.05). The elasticity score and strain ratio value between the lesion and normal tissue in the multimodal ultrasound of patients with benign breast tumors were significantly lower than those of patients with malignant breast tumors (P<0.05). In malignant lesions, the mean elasticity modulus, standard deviation (SD), and elasticity ratio between the lesion and normal tissue in shear wave elastography were significantly higher compared to benign lesions (P<0.05). The MRI indicators, including mean vascular density and enhancement rate, were significantly higher in patients with malignant breast lesions compared to those with benign lesions, while the peak time was notably lower in patients with benign lesions (P<0.05). Conclusion: Multimodal ultrasound and MRI demonstrate good diagnostic efficacy for benign and malignant lesions of breast cancer.
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.