ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2013
The use of magnetic resonance mammography in women at increased risk for developing breast cancer.
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of MRI combined with ultrasound for lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: Protocol for a meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Article
- Clinical predictors of malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia on vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2018Article
- Diagnostic value of preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasound assessment in patients with breast cancer qualified for sentinel lymph node biopsy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2015Article
- Efficacy and safety of breast radiothermometry in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of conventional imaging techniques, namely mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US), for breast cancer (BC) detection in women at high risk for the disease does not bring optimal results in many cases.
aimThe present study evaluated the effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) mammography (MRM) in cases where US and MMG failed to detect suspected breast lesions. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study group consisted of 379 women who had had no breast pathologies detected by US and MMG. This group was then divided into 4 groups according to the relative risk of breast cancer development. All the women underwent MRM, and any breast pathology detected by MRM was then verified by open surgical biopsy (OSB).
resultsBased on the MRM findings, 37 women with breast pathologies were identified. All detected pathologies were then classified into one of the BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) categories. Of these, 33 patients underwent open surgical biopsy. There were a total of 17 benign and 16 malignant breast pathologies that were not visualized by US and MMG. The types of malignancies found, in order of their frequency, were as follows: invasive ductal carcinoma (11 cases), ductal carcinoma in situ (2 cases), invasive lobular carcinoma (2 cases), and lobular carcinoma in situ (1 case). An analysis of MRM effectiveness in detecting BC showed 93.7% sensitivity and 64.71% specificity.
conclusionsAll women with a 20% or greater lifetime risk of developing BC should undergo annual MRM as a diagnostic adjunct to US and MMG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.