ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2020
Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy in a prone position in the diagnosis of breast cancer: technical parameters and clinical outcomes.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- From Innovation to Application: Can Emerging Imaging Techniques Transform Breast Cancer Diagnosis?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Detection of a contralateral breast malignancy using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) overlooked by initial MRI scan.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography for breast cancer detection and diagnosis with high concentration iodinated contrast medium.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- A head-to-head comparison of breast lesion's conspicuity at contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI.European radiology · 2025Article
- Review
- The Utility of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Evaluation of Bloody Nipple Discharge-A Multicenter Study in the Asian Population.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Application of the Kaiser score on contrast-enhanced mammography in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions: comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Upgraded BIRADS Scoring towards the True Pathology of Lesions Detected by Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Locoregional staging of breast cancer: contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: are kinetic patterns useful for differential diagnoses of enhanced lesions?Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Breast MRI: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2023Review
- Breast MRI: does a clinical decision algorithm outweigh reader experience?European radiology · 2022Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Which clinical, radiological, histological, and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known breast cancers with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)?Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE-MRI. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast-enhanced mammography (L-CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE-MRI of the breast. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, single center. POPULATION: Women with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L-CEM or CE-MRI. Eighty women were included. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 and 3T CE-MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L-CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype. ASSESSMENT: Three, off-site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI-RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard. STATISTICAL TEST: Lesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics.
resultsIncluded were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years ±11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE-MRI (92.5-94.6%; L-CEM 79.6-91.4%, P = 0.014). Sensitivity (L-CEM 65.6-90.2%; CE-MRI 83.6-93.4%, P = 0.086) and NPV (L-CEM 59.6-71.4%; CE-MRI 63.0-76.5%, P = 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L-CEM 46.9-96.9%; CE-MRI 37.5-53.1%, P = 0.001) and PPV (L-CEM 76.4-97.6%; CE-MRI 73.3-77.3%, P = 0.007) were significantly higher with L-CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L-CEM was as good as CE-MRI (75.3-76.3% vs. 72.0-75.3%, P = 0.514). DATA
conclusionL-CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE-MRI, L-CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L-CEM might help to reduce false-positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE-MRI LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589-595.
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.