ArticleEuropean radiology2015
Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 163 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practical Guide to Percutaneous Biopsy with Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: From Planning to Post-Procedural Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- How to optimise breast cancer staging with contrast-enhanced mammography: current evidence and clinical implications.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and MRI for breast non-mass microcalcifications: a novel Malignant Calcification Score in contrast-enhanced mammography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Findings of suspicious calcifications on contrast-enhanced mammography and their pathological correlation.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast MRI in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy in a prone position in the diagnosis of breast cancer: technical parameters and clinical outcomes.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: principles, challenges, and opportunities.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography demonstrates better inter-reader repeatability than digital mammography for screening breast cancer patients.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance.European radiology · 2025Article
- Lesion Conspicuity in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Retrospective Analysis of Tumor Characteristics.Cancers · 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
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in the management of breast architectural distortions and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of qualitative and quantitative enhancement parameters on contrast-enhanced mammographyDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
- Article
- 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 BI-RADS: a case-based approach to radiology reporting.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Combining Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Radioactive-Free Magnetic Seed Localization of Non-palpable Breast Tumors: A Feasibility Study.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Intra- and peritumoral radiomics for predicting malignant BiRADS category 4 breast lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: a multicenter study.European radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveContrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) examination results in a low-energy (LE) and contrast-enhanced image. The LE appears similar to a full-field digital mammogram (FFDM). Our aim was to evaluate LE CESM image quality by comparing it to FFDM using criteria defined by the European Reference Organization for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF).
methodsA total of 147 cases with both FFDM and LE images were independently scored by two experienced radiologists using these (20) EUREF criteria. Contrast detail measurements were performed using a dedicated phantom. Differences in image quality scores, average glandular dose, and contrast detail measurements between LE and FFDM were tested for statistical significance.
resultsNo significant differences in image quality scores were observed between LE and FFDM images for 17 out of 20 criteria. LE scored significantly lower on one criterion regarding the sharpness of the pectoral muscle (p < 0.001), and significantly better on two criteria on the visualization of micro-calcifications (p = 0.02 and p = 0.034). Dose and contrast detail measurements did not reveal any physical explanation for these observed differences.
conclusionsLow-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. From this perspective FFDM can be omitted in patients with an indication for CESM. KEY POINTS: • Low-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. • Micro-calcifications are significantly more visible on LE CESM than on FFDM. • There is no physical explanation for this improved visibility of micro-calcifications. • There is no need for an extra FFDM when CESM is indicated.
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.