Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Background: Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are widely used in clinical settings, aiding in the prevention of infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of research on the performance of RATs that can simultaneously diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza A/B viruses. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of a newly developed RAT that can detect all three pathogens at once, to assess its potential for clinical application. Methods: Clinical performance testing was conducted using 436 nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from patients with suspected respiratory infections. The newly developed RAT was compared with realtime reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) results to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, concordance with two previously approved products was assessed. Results: For patients who tested positive with rRT-PCR, the detection sensitivity of the newly developed INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test was 90.91% for SARS-CoV-2, 97.75% for Influenza A, and 93.00% for Influenza B, with a specificity of 100% for all three pathogens. In the concordance assessment with the existing RATs, the agreement was 99.76% (κ=0.9922) for SARS-CoV-2, 99.76% (κ=0.9927) for Influenza A, and 99.76% (κ=0.9930) for Influenza B. Compared to the existing RATs, all showed a concordance with κ >0.8. Conclusions The INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test efficiently detected antigens of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B viruses simultaneously within a short testing time of 15 minutes. Therefore, this test method, with its high sensitivity and specificity, will be highly useful for diagnosing viral infections in clinical settings.

Background: Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are widely used in clinical settings, aiding in the prevention of infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of research on the performance of RATs that can simultaneously diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza A/B viruses. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of a newly developed RAT that can detect all three pathogens at once, to assess its potential for clinical application. Methods: Clinical performance testing was conducted using 436 nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from patients with suspected respiratory infections. The newly developed RAT was compared with realtime reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) results to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, concordance with two previously approved products was assessed. Results: For patients who tested positive with rRT-PCR, the detection sensitivity of the newly developed INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test was 90.91% for SARS-CoV-2, 97.75% for Influenza A, and 93.00% for Influenza B, with a specificity of 100% for all three pathogens. In the concordance assessment with the existing RATs, the agreement was 99.76% (κ=0.9922) for SARS-CoV-2, 99.76% (κ=0.9927) for Influenza A, and 99.76% (κ=0.9930) for Influenza B. Compared to the existing RATs, all showed a concordance with κ >0.8. Conclusions The INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test efficiently detected antigens of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B viruses simultaneously within a short testing time of 15 minutes. Therefore, this test method, with its high sensitivity and specificity, will be highly useful for diagnosing viral infections in clinical settings.

Background: Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are widely used in clinical settings, aiding in the prevention of infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of research on the performance of RATs that can simultaneously diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza A/B viruses. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of a newly developed RAT that can detect all three pathogens at once, to assess its potential for clinical application. Methods: Clinical performance testing was conducted using 436 nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from patients with suspected respiratory infections. The newly developed RAT was compared with realtime reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) results to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, concordance with two previously approved products was assessed. Results: For patients who tested positive with rRT-PCR, the detection sensitivity of the newly developed INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test was 90.91% for SARS-CoV-2, 97.75% for Influenza A, and 93.00% for Influenza B, with a specificity of 100% for all three pathogens. In the concordance assessment with the existing RATs, the agreement was 99.76% (κ=0.9922) for SARS-CoV-2, 99.76% (κ=0.9927) for Influenza A, and 99.76% (κ=0.9930) for Influenza B. Compared to the existing RATs, all showed a concordance with κ >0.8. Conclusions The INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test efficiently detected antigens of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B viruses simultaneously within a short testing time of 15 minutes. Therefore, this test method, with its high sensitivity and specificity, will be highly useful for diagnosing viral infections in clinical settings.

Background: Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are widely used in clinical settings, aiding in the prevention of infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of research on the performance of RATs that can simultaneously diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza A/B viruses. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of a newly developed RAT that can detect all three pathogens at once, to assess its potential for clinical application. Methods: Clinical performance testing was conducted using 436 nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from patients with suspected respiratory infections. The newly developed RAT was compared with realtime reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) results to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, concordance with two previously approved products was assessed. Results: For patients who tested positive with rRT-PCR, the detection sensitivity of the newly developed INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test was 90.91% for SARS-CoV-2, 97.75% for Influenza A, and 93.00% for Influenza B, with a specificity of 100% for all three pathogens. In the concordance assessment with the existing RATs, the agreement was 99.76% (κ=0.9922) for SARS-CoV-2, 99.76% (κ=0.9927) for Influenza A, and 99.76% (κ=0.9930) for Influenza B. Compared to the existing RATs, all showed a concordance with κ >0.8. Conclusions The INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test efficiently detected antigens of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B viruses simultaneously within a short testing time of 15 minutes. Therefore, this test method, with its high sensitivity and specificity, will be highly useful for diagnosing viral infections in clinical settings.

Background: Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are widely used in clinical settings, aiding in the prevention of infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of research on the performance of RATs that can simultaneously diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza A/B viruses. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of a newly developed RAT that can detect all three pathogens at once, to assess its potential for clinical application. Methods: Clinical performance testing was conducted using 436 nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from patients with suspected respiratory infections. The newly developed RAT was compared with realtime reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) results to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, concordance with two previously approved products was assessed. Results: For patients who tested positive with rRT-PCR, the detection sensitivity of the newly developed INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test was 90.91% for SARS-CoV-2, 97.75% for Influenza A, and 93.00% for Influenza B, with a specificity of 100% for all three pathogens. In the concordance assessment with the existing RATs, the agreement was 99.76% (κ=0.9922) for SARS-CoV-2, 99.76% (κ=0.9927) for Influenza A, and 99.76% (κ=0.9930) for Influenza B. Compared to the existing RATs, all showed a concordance with κ >0.8. Conclusions The INCLIX TRF COVID-19 & Flu A/B Ag test efficiently detected antigens of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B viruses simultaneously within a short testing time of 15 minutes. Therefore, this test method, with its high sensitivity and specificity, will be highly useful for diagnosing viral infections in clinical settings.