ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Imaging features and conspicuity of invasive lobular carcinomas on digital breast tomosynthesis.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Nomogram Integrating Clinical and Ultrasonographic Features for Preoperative Differentiation of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma and Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for detecting invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities with Special Focus on Pathology Concordance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Transversal Perspectives of Integrative Oncology Care in Gastric and Lobular Breast Cancer.Cancer treatment and research · 2023Article
- Locally advanced invasive lobular carcinoma presenting as skin erythema, with multimodality imaging correlation.Radiology case reports · 2022Article
- Diagnosis of architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis using radiomics and deep learning.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Radiological review of prior screening mammograms of screen-detected breast cancer.European radiology · 2021Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis: sensitivity for cancer in younger symptomatic women.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Invasive lobular carcinoma mammographic findings: correlation with age, breast composition, and tumour size.Polish journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Pleomorphic Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast With Extracellular Mucin andBreast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2020Article
- Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update on Technology, Evidence, and Clinical Practice.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, IncArticle
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
objectiveTo review the imaging features of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) seen on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and to evaluate whether DBT could improve conspicuity and tumour size assessment of ILC in comparison with digital mammography (DM).
methodsInstitutional review board with waiver of informed consent was obtained for this retrospective study. Patients with ILC or IDC who underwent DBT and DM at the time of diagnosis were included. DM and DBT images were reviewed in consensus by two breast radiologists in order to assess imaging features, conspicuity and maximum tumour diameter of ILC and IDC. Pathology on the surgical specimen was considered the standard of reference for assessment of tumour size.
results43 patients (20 patients with ILC and 23 patients with IDC) were included. On DBT, compared with IDC, ILC presented less frequently as masses (40% vs 78%) (p = 0.01) and more frequently as isolated distortion (20% vs 0%) (p = 0.03). ILC presented more often as asymmetries (60%) than masses (20%) on DM (p = 0.02) but not on DBT (35% vs 40%; p = 1.00). Conspicuity of ILC was significantly higher on DBT than on DM (p = 0.002), while the difference between the two techniques was not significant for IDC (p = 0.2). Regarding ILC, concordance in tumour size measurement between DBT and pathology was fair (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.24).
conclusionILC rarely presented as dense masses but frequently demonstrated architectural distortion on DBT. DBT increased lesion conspicuity but failed to accurately assess tumour size of ILC. Advances in knowledge: (1) This study describes specific features of ILC on DBT. (2) It shows that DBT can improve conspicuity of ILC.
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.