“…Fischer et al ( 27 ) demonstrated that UE could be used to distinguish the breast cancer lesions with BI-RADS of 3–4, small diameter (<2 cm) and nontypical morphology. In the present study, it was revealed that UE was important to improve the specificity and accuracy of diagnosis, consistent with previous studies ( 6 , 28 ). Cho et al ( 29 ) also supported that UE was important in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant tumors.…”
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia (MDE) and breast cancer. This retrospective study was performed on 35 patients with MDE and 105 patients with breast cancer using US and MRI. Imaging features, semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters were analyzed to determine their diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer. The average age of patients with breast cancer was increased compared with that of patients with MDE. There were no significant differences in local packages with or without tenderness ratio (P=0.259) and grade of color Doppler flow imaging (P=0.273) between the two groups. However, the morphological changes were significantly increased in breast cancer compared with MDE. In addition, there were significant diagnostic differences in US and MRI between breast cancer and MDE, including resistance index, US elastography, time-signal intensity curve, apparent diffusion coefficient, early-stage enhancement ratio, peak-of-enhancement ratio and Tpeak (P<0.05). However, there were no observable significant diagnostic differences between US, MRI and US with MRI for MDE and breast cancer (P=0.103, P=0.263 and P=0.403 respectively). Diagnosis of MDE and breast cancer requires full evaluation of multiple parameters and morphological changes of US and MRI to increase the diagnostic efficiency. US, MRI and US with MRI were all of diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer, while US with MRI had the highest efficacy.
“…Fischer et al ( 27 ) demonstrated that UE could be used to distinguish the breast cancer lesions with BI-RADS of 3–4, small diameter (<2 cm) and nontypical morphology. In the present study, it was revealed that UE was important to improve the specificity and accuracy of diagnosis, consistent with previous studies ( 6 , 28 ). Cho et al ( 29 ) also supported that UE was important in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant tumors.…”
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia (MDE) and breast cancer. This retrospective study was performed on 35 patients with MDE and 105 patients with breast cancer using US and MRI. Imaging features, semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters were analyzed to determine their diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer. The average age of patients with breast cancer was increased compared with that of patients with MDE. There were no significant differences in local packages with or without tenderness ratio (P=0.259) and grade of color Doppler flow imaging (P=0.273) between the two groups. However, the morphological changes were significantly increased in breast cancer compared with MDE. In addition, there were significant diagnostic differences in US and MRI between breast cancer and MDE, including resistance index, US elastography, time-signal intensity curve, apparent diffusion coefficient, early-stage enhancement ratio, peak-of-enhancement ratio and Tpeak (P<0.05). However, there were no observable significant diagnostic differences between US, MRI and US with MRI for MDE and breast cancer (P=0.103, P=0.263 and P=0.403 respectively). Diagnosis of MDE and breast cancer requires full evaluation of multiple parameters and morphological changes of US and MRI to increase the diagnostic efficiency. US, MRI and US with MRI were all of diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer, while US with MRI had the highest efficacy.
“…A low risk of bias was found in the 14 studies regarding the reference standard. However, the risk of bias regarding flow and timing was high in seven studies in which either different reference standards were used or else some of the patients were not included in the final analysis (13,17,26,28,30,31,33). Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After reading the full texts, a further 49 studies were excluded for the following reasons: the diagnosis was not achieved using combined DCE-MRI and DWI (n ¼ 43), the researchers did not provide sufficient data to enable the construction of a 2 Â 2 table (n ¼ 4), the same data were presented in two articles (n ¼ 2). Therefore, 14 studies in which breast cancer was detected using combined DCE-MRI and DWI was used to detect breast cancer were ultimately included in this meta-analysis (13,14,(17)(18)(19)(20)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). Manual searching of the references of these 14 articles did not yield any additional relevant studies.…”
Section: Literature Searchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the 14 included studies, 1140 patients (age, 15-86 years) with 1276 lesions (775 malignant, 501 benign) were included in the meta-analysis. The study design was described as retrospective in seven studies (14,17,20,(27)(28)(29)32) and prospective in the remaining seven (13,18,19,26,30,31,33). One study included data from subgroups with no mass-like enhancement lesions (20) and another two included only patients with no mass-like enhancement lesions (26,30).…”
Section: Study Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The risk of bias regarding patient selection was unclear for seven studies in which there was no indication as to whether the patients were selected consecutively (14,17,20,27,(29)(30)(31). The risk of bias regarding the index test was high for six studies because the threshold was not prespecified (13,14,20,27,29,31), and the risk of reporting bias was unclear for six studies in which blinding was not mentioned (18,19,26,28,30,32). A low risk of bias was found in the 14 studies regarding the reference standard.…”
Section: Assessment Of Study Quality and Risk Of Biasmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
