ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Can mechanical imaging increase the specificity of mammography screening?
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between the results of simulated mechanical imaging on software breast phantom and in vivo measurements.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2026Article
- Estimation of the absorbed dose in simultaneous digital breast tomosynthesis and mechanical imaging.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Finite element model of mechanical imaging of the breast.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2022Article
- Science and practice of imaging physics through 50 years of SPIE Medical Imaging conferences.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2022Article
- Intra- and inter-rater reliability of compressed breast thickness, applied force, and pressure distribution in screening mammography.Acta radiologica open · 2021Article
- Comparison of sonoelastographic values of breast tissue with mammographically and ultrasonically assessed density: a cross-sectional study.Croatian medical journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the effects of adding adjunct mechanical imaging to mammography breast screening. We hypothesized that mechanical imaging could detect increased local pressure caused by both malignant and benign breast lesions and that a pressure threshold for malignancy could be established. The impact of this on breast screening was investigated with regard to reductions in recall and biopsy rates.
methods155 women recalled from breast screening were included in the study, which was approved by the regional ethical review board (dnr 2013/620). Mechanical imaging readings were acquired of the symptomatic breast. The relative mean pressure on the suspicious area (RMPA) was defined and a threshold for malignancy was established.
resultsBiopsy-proven invasive cancers had a median RMPA of 3.0 (interquartile range (IQR) = 3.7), significantly different from biopsy-proven benign at 1.3 (IQR = 1.0) and non-biopsied cases at 1.0 (IQR = 1.3) (P < 0.001). The lowest RMPA for invasive cancer was 1.4, with 23 biopsy-proven benign and 33 non-biopsied cases being below this limit. Had these women not been recalled, recall rates would have been reduced by 36% and biopsy rates by 32%.
conclusionsIf implemented in a screening situation, this may substantially lower the number of false positives. KEY POINTS: • Mechanical imaging is used as an adjunct to mammography in breast screening. • A threshold pressure can be established for malignant breast cancer. • Recalls and biopsies can be substantially reduced.
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.