ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Suspicious amorphous microcalcifications detected on full-field digital mammography: correlation with histopathology.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with the Two-Dimensional Synthesized Mammogram for Suspicious Breast Microcalcifications Compared to Full-Field Digital Mammography in Stereotactic Breast Biopsy.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Article
- Comprehensive quantitative malignant risk prediction of pure grouped amorphous calcifications: clinico-mammographic nomogram.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2019Article
- Amorphous breast calcifications: is BI-RADS 4a appropriate?Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate suspicious amorphous calcifications diagnosed on full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and establish correlations with histopathology findings. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study of 78 suspicious amorphous calcifications (all classified as BI-RADS
resultsAmong the 78 amorphous calcifications evaluated, the histopathological analysis indicated that 8 (10.3%) were malignant/suspicious (6 classified as pB5 and 2 classified as pB4) and 36 (46.2%) were benign (classified as pB2). The remaining 34 lesions (43.6%) were classified as pB3: 33.3% were precursor lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular neoplasia, or flat epithelial atypia) and 10.3% were high-risk lesions. For the pB3 lesions, the underestimation rate was zero.
conclusionThe diagnosis of precursor lesions (excluding atypical ductal hyperplasia, which can be pB4 depending on the severity and extent of the lesion) should not necessarily be considered indicative of underestimation of malignancy. Suspicious amorphous calcifications correlated more often with precursor lesions than with malignant lesions, at a ratio of 3:1.
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.