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: 1057
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3175
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) plus MicroFlow Imaging (CEUS-MFI), MicroFlow Imaging (MFI) alone, and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Methods: A total of 116 patients with 116 breast lesions categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 were enrolled in this prospective study. CEUS-MFI, MFI, and CDFI were used to evaluate the microvascular morphology and distribution types of breast lesions. Pathological results were considered the gold standard.
Results: Compared with conventional CDFI and MFI, the CEUS-MFI technique can reveal microvasculature and distribution types at a higher resolution in breast masses. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-MFI were 96.3%, 80.6%, and 91.4%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MFI were 87.5%, 75.0%, and 83.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CDFI were 58.8%, 72.2%, and 62.9%, respectively. The accuracy was significantly different between CEUS-MFI and MFI (P = 0.024), and the accuracy was significantly different between CEUS-MFI and CDFI (P = 0.000). US BI-RADS 4A masses were downgraded based on CEUS-MFI features without any malignancy missed, with the biopsy rate decreasing from 100% (29/29) to 31.0% (9/29).
Conclusion: CEUS-MFI provides improved diagnostic efficacy for breast lesions. The CEUS-MFI technique can be used as an effective supplement to conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of breast tumors.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10396-025-01517-4 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!