## 1 Introduction  
The hallmark of breast cancer lies in the uncontrolled proliferation and growth of abnormal cells, which eventually appear as a distinct mass within the breast tissue. Breast cancer stands as the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality after lung cancer and the most prevalent malignancy affecting women globally [1]. According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), this tumor affects 2.1 million women annually and constitutes the predominant cause of cancer-related deaths for females between the ages of 40 and 55 [2]. In fact, this particular malignancy is responsible for 15% of all cancer-related deaths within the female population [2]. With the advancements in pharmaceuticals yielding new treatments with improved efficacy and reduced toxicity, breast cancer has evolved into a malignancy with a better prognosis. Consequently, the paradigm for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer has shifted towards managing it as a chronic condition, necessitating an extensive assortment of strategies, from screening to post-diagnostic treatment and follow-up. Therefore, early detection of breast cancer is crucial to the overarching management framework, improving treatment success rates and substantially reducing mortality rates [3, 4]. For the adjunctive diagnosis of breast cancer, imaging modalities such as mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) serve as indispensable tools, each offering distinct insights into anatomical structures, functional characteristics, and metabolic processes, thereby facilitating comprehensive clinical decision-making [5]. Nevertheless, each diagnostic modality presents inherent drawbacks. Mammography is predominantly employed in the screening of asymptomatic women with breast cancer, leveraging its capability to detect small tumors [6; 7] using minimal X-ray exposure [8]. Despite its extensive adoption, mammography has some limitations, including a higher likelihood of false positives [9; 10]. This can lead to a lower specificity, resulting in unnecessary biopsies and making the screening process more complicated [10]. Moreover, MRI exhibits higher sensitivity compared to the aforementioned techniques in detecting breast cancer, albeit at a higher cost and with relatively lower specificity [11; 12]. Conversely, imaging modalities like PET and CT entail potential risks associated with radiation exposure [13]. In the realm of clinical practice, ultrasound emerges as the preeminent imaging modality for the staging of tumors and guidance of biopsies in instances of diagnosed or suspected primary breast cancer, largely due to its remarkable versatility, portability, and cost-effectiveness [14]. Despite its reliance on the expertise of highly trained operators, ultrasounds are increasingly esteemed as a critical adjunct in routine breast cancer screenings, attributed to its superior capability in visualizing dense breast tissue, devoid of the risks associated with ionizing radiation. The utility of ultrasound is particularly pronounced in delineating breast masses situated in technically challenging regions for other imaging methods, such as the margins of medial quadrants adjacent to the breastbone and in aberrant mammary lobes. Furthermore, ultrasound uniquely excels in the comprehensive analysis of whole-breast vascularity and the vascular patterns of lesions, alongside its precision in characterizing abnormal lymph nodes. The method's noninvasive, harmless nature, coupled with its accessibility and considerable effectiveness in diagnosing a broad spectrum of breast conditions, underpins its frequent application even in the absence of specific indications, often serving preventive purposes. Notwithstanding its numerous advantages, the quality of ultrasound imaging has been hampered by inherent speckle noise and low contrast discernibility in different types of tissues.