ArticleMedicine2019
Breast lesion size assessment in mastectomy specimens: Correlation of cone-beam breast-CT, digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography with histopathology.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiomics in cone-beam breast CT for the prediction of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a multi-center multi-device study.European radiology · 2024Article
- Accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography for assessing breast cancer tumor size-comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Radiomics nomogram for predicting axillary lymph node metastasis-a potential method to address the limitation of axilla coverage in cone-beam breast CT: a bi-center retrospective study.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- A multi-stage fusion framework to classify breast lesions using deep learning and radiomics features computed from four-view mammograms.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part II. Clinical application and future outlook.European radiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the accuracy of breast lesion size measurement of cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).Patients scheduled for mastectomy due to at least 1 malignant breast lesion were included. Mastectomy specimens were examined by CBBCT, DBT, FFDM, and histopathology.A total of 94 lesions (40 patients) were included. Histopathological analyses revealed 47 malignant, 6 high-risk, and 41 benign lesions. Mean histopathological lesion size was 20.8 mm (range 2-100). Mean absolute size deviation from histopathology was largest for FFDM (5.3 ± 6.7 mm) and smallest for CBBCT 50 mA, high-resolution mode (4.3 ± 6.7 mm). Differences between imaging modalities did not reach statistical significance (P = .85).All imaging methods tend to overestimate breast lesion size compared to histopathological gold standard. No significant differences were found regarding size measurements, although in tendency CBBCT showed better lesion detection and cT classification over FFDM.
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.