Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26295674›Full record

ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2015

Direct-Conversion Molecular Breast Imaging of Invasive Breast Cancer: Imaging Features, Extent of Invasive Disease, and Comparison Between Invasive Ductal and Lobular Histology.

Amy Lynn Conners, Katie N Jones, Carrie B Hruska, Jennifer R Geske, Judy C Boughey, Deborah J Rhodes

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Current and future perspectives of molecular breast imaging with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Review
  3. Current Concepts in Molecular Breast Imaging.Journal of breast imaging · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Advances and Future Directions in Molecular Breast Imaging.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022
    Review
  7. Application-specific nuclear medicalPhysics in medicine and biology · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy Lynn Conners1 Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
Katie N Jones1 Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
Carrie B Hruska2 Department of Radiology, Medical Physics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Jennifer R Geske3 Department of Biomedical Statistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Judy C Boughey4 Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Deborah J Rhodes5 Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

MAYO CLINIC CENTER FOR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIESUL1RR024150 · NCRR · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI RIZZA, ROBERT A. · 2006 to 2011
$66.4M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024150
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purposes of this study were to compare the tumor appearance of invasive breast cancer on direct-conversion molecular breast imaging using a standardized lexicon and to determine how often direct-conversion molecular breast imaging identifies all known invasive tumor foci in the breast, and whether this differs for invasive ductal versus lobular histologic profiles. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with prior invasive breast cancer and concurrent direct-conversion molecular breast imaging examinations were retrospectively reviewed. Blinded review of direct-conversion molecular breast imaging examinations was performed by one of two radiologists, according to a validated lexicon. Direct-conversion molecular breast imaging findings were matched with lesions described on the pathology report to exclude benign reasons for direct-conversion molecular breast imaging findings and to document direct-conversion molecular breast imaging-occult tumor foci. Associations between direct-conversion molecular breast imaging findings and tumor histologic profiles were examined using chi-square tests.

resultsIn 286 patients, 390 invasive tumor foci were present in 294 breasts. A corresponding direct-conversion molecular breast imaging finding was present for 341 of 390 (87%) tumor foci described on the pathology report. Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) tumor foci were more likely to be a mass (40% IDC vs 15% invasive lobular carcinoma [ILC]; p < 0.001) and to have marked intensity than were ILC foci (63% IDC vs 32% ILC; p < 0.001). Direct-conversion molecular breast imaging correctly revealed all pathology-proven foci of invasive disease in 79.8% of cases and was more likely to do so for IDC than for ILC (86.1% vs 56.7%; p < 0.0001). Overall, direct-conversion molecular breast imaging showed all known invasive foci in 249 of 286 (87%) patients.

conclusionDirect-conversion molecular breast imaging features of invasive cancer, including lesion type and intensity, differ by histologic subtype. Direct-conversion molecular breast imaging is less likely to show all foci of ILC compared with IDC.

Indexed as

Molecular ImagingAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTechnetium Tc 99m SestamibiRadiopharmaceuticalsTechnetium Tc 99m Sestamibibreast cancerinvasive ductal carcinomainvasive lobular carcinomamolecular breast imaging

Identifiers

PMID26295674
PMCPMC8900216
OpenAlexW1705216495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.