ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Breast-specific gamma imaging or ultrasonography as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Driven Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review of Imaging Modalities, Deep Learning, and Explainability.Cancers · 2026Review
- Study on ABUS Applicability for Rural Women With Low Health Resources in China-Large-Scale Population, Non-Opportunistic Screening.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based model constructed from ultrasound radiomics and clinical features for predicting HER2 status in breast cancer patients with indeterminate (2+) immunohistochemical results.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- State-of-the-Art of Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Medical Images via Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs).Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023Review
- Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging: An Added Value in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, a Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Current State of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Theranostics.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Dependability of Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) in Assessing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Category and Size of Malignant Breast Lesions Compared with Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) and Mammography (MG).International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- [Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMammography (MMG) shows decreased diagnostic accuracy in dense breast tissue, and thus, ultrasonography (US) and breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) have gradually been adopted for women with mammographically dense breasts. However, these two adjunct modalities have not been directly compared in previous studies. Hence, we investigated the adjunctive efficacy of US and BSGI in mammographically dense breasts.
methodsThis retrospective, comparative study recruited women with mammographically dense breasts. All enrolled women underwent US and BSGI as adjunctive imaging, and the comparative sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of combined MMG plus BSGI versus MMG plus US were evaluated. McNemar's test was used for paired binary data in this comparative analysis.
resultsFrom April 2013 to April 2016, 364 women with mammographically dense breasts and a final surgical or biopsy pathological diagnosis were recruited, comprising 218 cases of malignant disease (59.9%) and 146 cases of benign disease (40.1%). There was no difference between BSGI and US in enhancing the sensitivity of MMG diagnosis (Se-Difference 3.2%, p = 0.23), but the diagnostic specificity of MMG plus BSGI was superior to that of MMG plus US (Sp-Difference 10.3%, p = 0.003). The area under the ROC curve showed that MMG plus BSGI had better diagnostic accuracy than MMG plus US (0.90 vs. 0.83, p = 0.0019).
conclusionsFor women with mammographically dense breasts, MMG plus BSGI or US can improve the diagnostic accuracy. In addition, BSGI has high specificity and could reduce invasive biopsies and thus may represent a viable diagnostic imaging alternative for mammographically dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • Both BSGI and US can be applied as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts. • The diagnostic accuracy of MMG plus BSGI was higher than that of MMG plus US. • BSGI has the potential to be used as an adjunct diagnostic modality in women with mammographically dense breasts.
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.