Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,640

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Breast Disease: Clinical Application of US Elastography for Diagnosis

Itoh, Ako, Ueno, Ei, Tohno, Eriko, Kamma, Hiroshi, Takahashi, Hideto, Shiina, Tsuyoshi, Yamakawa, Makoto, Matsumura, Takeshi·2006·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of real-time freehand elastography by using the extended combined autocorrelation method (CAM) to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions, with pathologic diagnosis as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Tsukuba Human Subjects Institutional Review Board; all patients gave informed consent. Conventional ultrasonography (US) and real-time US elastography with CAM were performed in 111 women (mean age, 49.4 years; age range, 27-91 years) who had breast lesions (59 benign, 52 malignant). Elasticity images were assigned an elasticity score according to the degree and distribution of strain induced by light compression. The area under the curve and cutoff point, both of which were obtained by using a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, were used to assess diagnostic performance. Mean scores were examined by using a Student t test. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared by using the standard proportion difference test or the Delta-equivalent test. RESULTS: For elasticity score, the mean +/- standard deviation was 4.2 +/- 0.9 for malignant lesions and 2.1 +/- 1.0 for benign lesions (P < .001). When a cutoff point of between 3 and 4 was used, elastography had 86.5% sensitivity, 89.8% specificity, and 88.3% accuracy. When a best cutoff point of between 4 and 5 was used, conventional US had 71.2% sensitivity, 96.6% specificity, and 84.7% accuracy. Elastography had higher sensitivity than conventional US (P < .05). By using equivalence bands for noninferiority or equivalence, it was shown that the specificity of elastography was not inferior to that of conventional US and that the accuracy of elastography was equivalent to that of conventional US. CONCLUSION: For assessing breast lesions, US elastography with the proposed imaging classification, which was simple compared with that of the Breast Imaging Recording and Data System classification, had almost the same diagnostic performance as conventional US.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2391041676

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,640

Metadata

Authors
Itoh, A., Ueno, E., Tohno, E., Kamma, H., Takahashi, H., Shiina, T., Yamakawa, M., & Matsumura, T.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2006-05
Volume
239
Issue
2
Pages
341-350
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2132290789
Cited by
1,640
References
0
FWCI
35.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Breast Disease: Clinical Application of US Elastography for Diagnosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2391041676
The paper
Itoh, A., Ueno, E., Tohno, E., Kamma, H., Takahashi, H., Shiina, T., Yamakawa, M., & Matsumura, T. (2006). Breast Disease: Clinical Application of US Elastography for Diagnosis. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391041676

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.