Clinical efficacy analysis of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation in treating fibroadenomas of different breast gland types: a retrospective study
Yu D., He K., Lin Z., Luo Y., Zhang C., Li M.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 201, published in PeerJ (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- PeerJ (2026)
- Reported sample size
- 201
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41983234
- PMCID
- PMC13075401
- DOI
- 10.7717/peerj.21025
Abstract (original English)
Background High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) is an emerging non-invasive therapy for breast fibroadenoma. However, its efficacy across different breast glandular types, which may influence acoustic energy deposition, remains underexplored. Objective This study sought to investigate the treatment efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided HIFU for breast fibroadenoma with respect to different breast gland types. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 201 patients (314 lesions) with biopsy-confirmed breast fibroadenomas treated between January 2024 and November 2024. Patients were stratified into four groups based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) breast composition classification: fatty group ( 75%). All patients underwent ultrasound-guided HIFU ablation using the JC-200 system (Chongqing Haifu Medical Technology Co., Ltd., China). The baseline characteristics of patients, lesion features of fibroadenomas, relevant parameters during HIFU treatment, follow-up duration, and tumor volume reduction rate (VRR) were recorded and comparatively analyzed. Statistical analyses included One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with least significant difference (LSD)-t tests for pairwise comparisons. 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 d
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.