Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: The distribution and morphology of mass microvessels could affect the diagnostic accuracy of breast cancer (BC). The aim of our study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and micro-flow imaging (CEUS-MFI), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) in the assessment of mass microvasculature.
Methods: A total of 106 patients with 106 breast masses categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 were enrolled in our prospective study. CEUS-MFI, CEUS and conventional CDFI were used to estimate the microvascular morphology and distribution types of breast lesions, respectively. Pathological results were considered the gold standard.
Results: CEUS-MFI technique applied in microvascular morphology and distribution types resulted in a higher resolution in breast lesions than the CEUS and CDFI techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-MFI were 94.4%, 85.3%, and 91.5%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS were 88.9%, 82.4%, and 86.8%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the CDFI were 61.1%, 76.5% and 66.0%, respectively. There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CEUS (P=0.01). There were significant differences in accuracy between the CEUS-MFI and CDFI (P<0.001).
Conclusions: This study supports CEUS-MFI is a new and promising imaging method for visualizing microvasculature in breast masses. CEUS-MFI improves the diagnostic capacity for BC.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635578 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/gs-24-264 | DOI Listing |