ArticlePloS one2020
Kinetic patterns of benign and malignant breast lesions on contrast enhanced digital mammogram.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: qualitative and quantitative analyses.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Advances, Challenges, and Case-Based Insights.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Evaluation of Breast Lesions: An Initial Experience.Cureus · 2025Article
- Addition of contrast-enhanced mammography enhancement patterns and morphology for differentiating benign from malignant papillary breast lesions.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Role of contrast-enhanced mammogram as an adjunct to tomosynthesis in evaluation of circumscribed breast lesions.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Review
- 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
- Nomogram for preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors using contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE CB-BCT) quantitative imaging and assessment features.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: are kinetic patterns useful for differential diagnoses of enhanced lesions?Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Can the delayed phase of quantitative contrast-enhanced mammography improve the diagnostic performance on breast masses?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the kinetic patterns of benign and malignant breast lesions using contrast-enhanced digital mammogram (CEDM).
methodsWomen with suspicious breast lesions on mammography or ultrasound were enrolled. Single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) CEDM of an affected breast was acquired at 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 min after injection of contrast agent. Three readers visually and semi-quantitatively analyzed the enhancement of suspicious lesions. The kinetic pattern of each lesion was classified as persistent, plateau, or washout over two time intervals, 2-4 min and 2-10 min, by comparing the signal intensity at the first time interval with that at the second.
resultsThere were 73 malignant and 75 benign lesions in 148 patients (mean age: 52 years). Benign and malignant breast lesions showed the highest signal intensity at 3 min and 2 min, respectively. Average areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for diagnostic accuracy based on lesion enhancement at different time points were 0.73 at 2 min, 0.72 at 3 min, 0.69 at 4 min, 0.67 at 7 min, and 0.64 at 10 min. Diagnostic performance was significantly better at 2, 3, and 4 min than at 7 and 10 min (all p < 0.05). A washout kinetic pattern was significantly associated with malignant lesions at 2-4 min and 2-10 min frames according to two of the three readers' interpretations (all p ≤ 0.001).
conclusionApplications of optimal time intervals and kinetic patterns show promise in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions on CEDM.
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.