ArticleEuropean radiology2014
Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis.
Article in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 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
74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography for suspicious findings in dense breasts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI for breast cancer staging: detection of additional malignant lesions not seen on conventional imaging.European radiology experimental · 2023Trial
- Comparative Analysis of CEM and Breast MRI: A Retrospective Study.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: qualitative and quantitative analyses.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: principles, challenges, and opportunities.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Evaluation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: large-scale single center experience, update to 1005 cases.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- A head-to-head comparison of breast lesion's conspicuity at contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI.European radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of diagnostic performance of automatic breast ultrasound and spectral mammography as complementary methods to mammography examination.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Advancing clinical staging in invasive breast carcinoma: the role of contrast-enhanced mammography.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Renally Excretable Molybdenum Disulfide Nanoparticles as Contrast Agents for Dual-Energy Mammography and Computed Tomography.Bioconjugate chemistry · 2024Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Literature Review of Clinical Uses for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Oncology.Cancers · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.Radiology · 2024Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography versus conventional imaging in women recalled from breast cancer screening (RACER trial): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Improving mammography interpretation for both novice and experienced readers: a comparative study of two commercial artificial intelligence software.European radiology · 2024Article
- Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative detection of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: a comparison with low-energy image and magnetic resonance imaging.European radiology · 2024Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Women with Palpable Breast Abnormalities.Academic radiology · 2024Article
- Breast Cancer Detection Using a Low-Dose Positron Emission Digital Mammography System.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyse the accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in dense breasts in comparison with contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography (CESM) and conventional mammography (Mx). MATERIALS AND
methodsCESM cases of dense breasts with histological proof were evaluated in the present study. Four radiologists with varying experience in mammography interpretation blindly read Mx first, followed by CESM. The diagnostic profiles, consistency and learning curve were analysed statistically.
resultsOne hundred lesions (28 benign and 72 breast malignancies) in 89 females were analysed. Use of CESM improved the cancer diagnosis by 21.2 % in sensitivity (71.5 % to 92.7 %), by 16.1 % in specificity (51.8 % to 67.9 %) and by 19.8 % in accuracy (65.9 % to 85.8 %) compared with Mx. The interobserver diagnostic consistency was markedly higher using CESM than using Mx alone (0.6235 vs. 0.3869 using the kappa ratio). The probability of a correct prediction was elevated from 80 % to 90 % after 75 consecutive case readings.
conclusionCESM provided additional information with consistent improvement of the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared to Mx alone. The prediction of the diagnosis could be improved by the interpretation of a significant number of cases in the presence of 6 % benign contrast enhancement in this study. KEY POINTS: • DE-CESM improves the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared with mammography. • DE-CESM shows greater consistency than mammography alone by interobserver blind reading. • Diagnostic improvement of DE-CESM is independent of the mammographic reading experience.
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.