ArticleThe British journal of radiology2015
Added value of semi-quantitative breast-specific gamma imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions compared to mammography, ultrasound and 3-T MRI.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of ultrasound · 2023Pooled it
- SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline for Molecular Breast Imaging with Dedicated γ-Cameras.Journal of nuclear medicine technology · 2022Guideline
- Application of Breast Scintigraphy for Patients with Suspicious (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System IV) Breast Lesions.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging: An Added Value in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, a Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Management of Incidental Breast Lesions Detected at Nuclear Medicine Examinations.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2020Review
- Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy.European radiology · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo prospectively analyse the diagnostic value of semi-quantitative breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions compared with that of mammography (MG), breast ultrasound and MRI of the breast.
methodsWithin a 15-month period, 67 patients with 92 breast lesions rated as Category IV or V according to the breast imaging reporting and data system detected with MG and/or ultrasound were included into the study. After the injection of 740-1110 MBq of Technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) SestaMIBI intravenously, scintigrams were obtained in two projections comparable to MG. The BSGI was analysed visually and semi-quantitatively by calculating a relative uptake factor (X). With the exception of two patients with cardiac pacemakers, all patients underwent 3-T breast MRI. Biopsy results were obtained as the reference standard in all patients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative-predictive values, accuracy and area under the curve were calculated for each modality.
resultsAmong the 92 lesions, 67 (72.8%) were malignant. 60 of the 67 cancers of any size were detected by BSGI with an overall sensitivity of 90%, only exceeded by ultrasound with a sensitivity of 99%. The sensitivity of BSGI for lesions <1 cm declined significantly to 60%. Overall specificity of ultrasound was only 20%. Specificity, accuracy and positive-predictive value were the highest for BSGI (56%, 80% and 85%, respectively). X was significantly higher for malignant lesions (mean, 4.27) and differed significantly between ductal types (mean, 4.53) and the other histopathological entities (mean, 3.12).
conclusionSemi-quantitative BSGI with calculation of the relative uptake factor (X) can help to characterize breast lesions. BSGI negativity may obviate the need for biopsy of breast lesions >1 cm with low or intermediate prevalence for malignancy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Compared with morphological imaging modalities, specificity, positive-predictive value for malignancy and accuracy were the highest for BSGI in our study. BSGI negativity may support the decision not to biopsy in selected lesions with a low or low-to-moderate pre-test probability for malignancy.
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.