ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Cone beam CT for determining breast cancer margin: an initial experience and its comparison with mammography and specimen radiograph.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-resolutionJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021Article
- Article
- Enabling tomography with low-cost C-arm systems.PloS one · 2018Article
- Areas of breast tissue covered in cone beam breast CT imaging.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Noise Power Characteristics of a Micro-Computed Tomography System.Journal of computer assisted tomography · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the ability of cone beam CT (CBCT) in determining the breast cancer margin using, to compare the results with mammography and specimen radiography, and to explore the clinical potential of CBCT for breast imaging.
methodsSpecimens of 46 breast cancer patients were imaged by using a prototype CBCT system. Each patient underwent mammography, CBCT and X-ray of breast surgical specimen within 6 months. Images of mammography, breast surgical specimen radiography and CBCT were evaluated by an experienced radiologist. Indicators, such as: morphology, glitch, density, invasion, structural distortion and calcification, were observed.
resultThere was no significant difference of the calcification, glitch and morphology among three methods. However, there was significant difference in indicators of breast tumor invasion among three methods. There was statistical significance in detecting invasions of breast cancer cells in peripheral tissues among three methods.
conclusionCBCT shows no superiority over mammography and specimen radiography in determining tumor's outline and detecting calcification. On the other hand, CBCT demonstrates its advantage in determining the 3 dimensional position of a lesion which could be a potential clinical application in future practices of breast imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26629005PMC4658894W2186237622What 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.