ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- The additive value of 3D automated breast ultrasound and contrast enhanced spectral mammography in the assessment of suspicious breast lesions.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Multivariable model to predict breast cancer in non-mass enhancement lesions: a study on contrast-enhanced mammography.European radiology · 2025Article
- Lesion Conspicuity in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Retrospective Analysis of Tumor Characteristics.Cancers · 2025Article
- Screening of breast cancer in higher-risk Taiwanese women using contrast-enhanced mammography.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of qualitative and quantitative enhancement parameters on contrast-enhanced mammographyDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
- Breast masses with rim enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: morphological and enhancement features for diagnosis and differentiation of benign and malignant.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography-Guided Biopsy: Preliminary Results of a Single-Center Retrospective Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Intra- and peritumoral radiomics for predicting malignant BiRADS category 4 breast lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: a multicenter study.European radiology · 2023Article
- Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Enhancing Asymmetry: Single-Center First Case Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Accuracy and precision of contrast enhanced mammography versus MRI for predicting breast cancer size: how "good" are they really?The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- [Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS): Advantages and Limitations].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Review
- Association between quantitative and qualitative image features of contrast-enhanced mammography and molecular subtypes of breast cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- How Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Can Provide Useful Clinical Information About Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Screening Multifocal and Multicentric Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Incorporating the clinical and radiomics features of contrast-enhanced mammography to classify breast lesions: a retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- A Bottom-Up Review of Image Analysis Methods for Suspicious Region Detection in Mammograms.Journal of imaging · 2021Review
- Can the delayed phase of quantitative contrast-enhanced mammography improve the diagnostic performance on breast masses?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future.Clinical imaging · 2021Review
- Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions.La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: To assess the feasibility of using the MRI breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon morphology descriptors to characterize enhancing breast lesions identified on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM).
methods: The study is a retrospective analysis of the morphology descriptors of 261 enhancing breast lesions identified on CESM in 239 patients. We presented the morphological categorization of the included lesions into focus, mass and non-mass. Further classifications included (1) the multiplicity for "focus" category, (2) the shape, margin and internal enhancement for "mass" category and (3) the distribution and internal enhancement for "non-mass" category. Each morphology descriptor was evaluated individually (irrespective of all other descriptors) by calculating its sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV) and negative-predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios (LRs).
results: The study included 68/261 (26.1%) benign lesions and 193/261 (73.9%) malignant lesions. Intensely enhancing foci, whether single (7/12, 58.3%) or multiple (2/12, 16.7%), were malignant. Descriptors of "irregular"-shape (PPV: 92.4%) and "non-circumscribed" margin (odds ratio: 55.2, LR positive: 4.77; p-value: <0.001) were more compatible with malignancy. Internal mass enhancement patterns showed a very low specificity (58.0%) and NPV (40.0%). Non-mass enhancement (NME) was detected in 81/261 lesions. Asymmetrical NME in 81% (n = 52/81) lesions was malignant lesions and internal enhancement patterns indicative of malignancy were the heterogeneous and clumped ones.
conclusion: We can apply the MRI morphology descriptors to characterize lesions on CESM, but with few expectations. In many situations, irregular-shaped, non-circumscribed masses and NME with focal, ductal or segmental distribution and heterogeneous or clumped enhancement are the most suggestive descriptors of malignant pathologies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: (1) The MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors can be applied in the characterization of enhancing lesions on CESM with a few exceptions. (2) Multiple bilateral intensely enhancing foci should not be included under the normal background parenchymal enhancement unless they are proved to be benign by biopsy. (3) Mass lesion features that indicated malignancy were irregular-shaped, spiculated and irregular margins and heterogeneous internal enhancement patterns. The rim enhancement pattern should not be considered as a descriptor of malignant lesions unless CESM is coupled with an ultrasound examination.
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.