ArticleEuropean radiology2011
Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography.
Article in European radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of full field digital mammography diagnosis for female patients with breast cancer.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- [Use of imaging methods in the current screening, diagnostics and treatment of breast cancer - Professional guidelines. 5th Breast Cancer Consensus Meeting (2025)].Magyar onkologia · 2025Article
- Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2022Review
- A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Review
- Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.European radiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the conspicuity of different histopathological types of breast cancer according to breast density and mammographic imaging in patients with screen-detected breast cancers undergoing both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).
methods185 patients underwent routine screening with SFM followed by further imaging using FFDM with consequent diagnosis of breast cancer. All SFM and soft-copy FFDM images were evaluated by two readers in an independent, retrospective review. The visualisation and conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality were recorded and graded using a four-level scale. Conspicuity of breast cancer was qualitatively evaluated. Breast density and conspicuity were correlated with histopathological diagnosis and inter-observer correlation was calculated.
resultsMixed Model ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between FFDM and SFM (p<0.001) and breast densities (p=0.009): conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality (p<0.001) and visualisation of the dominant mammographic feature (p<0.001) were significantly greater with FFDM than SFM. This held true for both readers and for all histopathological tumour types with no significant differences between each tumour type.
conclusionFFDM is significantly superior to SFM for conspicuity of screen-detected breast cancers for all histopathological types and breast densities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20683600What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.