ArticleLa Radiologia medica2019
Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing clinical staging in invasive breast carcinoma: the role of contrast-enhanced mammography.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Literature Review of Clinical Uses for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Oncology.Cancers · 2024Review
- Review
- Exploring the Potential of a Novel Iodine-Based Material as an Alternative Contrast Agent in X-ray Imaging Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Diagnosing and Treating Breast Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Conventional Imaging in Women with Dense Breasts.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Contrast enhanced mammography: focus on frequently encountered benign and malignant diagnoses.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Review
- Article
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging: state of the art and applications in whole-body imaging.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Radiomic Feature Reduction Approach to Predict Breast Cancer by Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Review
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography without and with a delayed image for diagnosing malignancy among mass lesions in dense breast.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2021Article
- Multimodality advanced imaging and intervention in gland diseases.Gland surgery · 2020Article
- Apparent diffusion coefficient magnetic resonance imaging (ADC-MRI) in the axillary breast cancer lymph node metastasis detection: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2020Review
- Diagnostic Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Performed Immediately Prior to Same-Day Biopsy: An Analysis of Index Lesion Enhancement Compared to Histopathology and Follow-up in Patients With Suspicious Ultrasound Findings.Journal of breast imagingArticle
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
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM) in comparison with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM), either alone or accompanied with breast ultrasound (BUS) in a large series of patients/breast lesions (n = 644). PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, five radiologists evaluated the lesions by three imaging modalities: FFDM, FFDM + BUS, and CESM and compared the imaging to the gold standard (histopathology or clinical follow-up). Diagnostic performance parameters and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of CESM were calculated and compared to those of FFDM or FFDM + BUS (McNemar's test). Additionally, the reliability of tumor size measurement by CESM was compared with the histopathological measurement.
resultsThe study included 218 benign and 426 malignant lesions. 85% of benign and 93% of malignant lesions were adequately identified using CESM. With respect to FFDM and FFDM + BUS, CESM significantly increased sensitivity to 93.2% (+ 10.7% and + 3.4%, respectively); specificity to 84.4% (+ 15.8% and + 1.7%, respectively); PPV to 92.3% (+ 26.8% and + 3.6%, respectively); NPV to 86.0% (+ 1.6% and + 1.8%, respectively); and accuracy to 90.2% (+ 15.8% and + 3.2%, respectively). In the ROC curves analyses, the comparison among the three AUC values was also statistically significant (p < 0.001). Good agreement between tumor diameters measured using CESM and histopathology was observed (Spearman's rank correlation, r = 0.891, p < 0.0001), although this technique tended to produce an overestimation of the size (+ 7 mm).
conclusionsCESM has high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered as a useful technique for the assessment of breast lesions.
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.