Back to all available

Clinical Efficacy Analysis of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation in Treating Fibroadenomas of Different Breast Gland Types

evidence-based-medicine
public-health
surgery-and-surgical-specialties
womens-health

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) in treating fibroadenomas of different breast tissue types.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 201 patients diagnosed with breast fibroadenoma via core needle biopsy between January 2024 and November 2024, involving a total of 314 lesions. Patients were categorized into fatty, loose, mixed, and dense groups based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) breast composition classification. Baseline characteristics, lesion features of fibroadenomas, HIFU treatment parameters, follow-up duration, and tumor volume reduction rate (VRR) were recorded and comparatively analyzed.

Results: The average surgical power in the loose group (142.8±38.5 W) was significantly higher than that in the fatty group (128.7±23.3 W), mixed group (128.8±36.6 W), and dense group (121.4±39.5 W), with statistically significant differences (p<0.05). The post-HIFU treatment average VRRs for the fatty, loose, mixed, and dense groups were 72.9±16%, 61.6±24%, 55%±22%, and 49%±32%, respectively. LSD-t test analysis revealed statistically significant differences between pairwise comparisons, including fatty versus loose, fatty versus mixed, fatty versus dense, and loose versus dense groups (p<0.05).

Conclusion: HIFU is a safe and effective treatment for fibroadenomas across different breast tissue types, with the highest surgical power required in the loose tissue subtype. Volume reduction rates varied among glandular classifications, demonstrating superior outcomes in the fat-rich subtype.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].