ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Additive value of exposure parameters for breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammography.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting Non-Mass Breast Cancer Utilizing Ultrasound and Molybdenum Target X-Ray Characteristics.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
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
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the effect of different breast lesions on exposure parameters in digital mammography and to determine whether the exposure parameters can additively improve diagnostic efficiency.
methodsCraniocaudal view and mediolateral view full-field digital mammography images from 982 women with unilateral lesions (341 with malignant lesions, 189 with benign lesions, and 452 healthy women) obtained at Nanfang Hospital were reviewed. Differences in exposure parameters (tube voltage and load, breast thickness (BT), and average glandular dose (AGD)) between breasts were calculated. The relationships between parameter differences and lesion size were explored. A logistic regression model was used based on the AGD and BT differences, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the performance of these parameters in differentiating malignant from benign and healthy subjects. Independently, data from 129 women (82 with malignant and 47 with benign lesions) treated at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital were collected to validate the model.
resultsDifferences in tube voltage and load, BT, and AGD between breasts were significantly greater in the malignant subjects than benign (p < 0.05) and healthy subjects (p < 0.05). The AUCs for the comparisons of malignant vs. healthy subjects, malignant vs. benign subjects, and benign vs. healthy subjects were 0.77 ± 0.02, 0.72 ± 0.02, and 0.57 ± 0.02, respectively. The model combining the exposure parameters with the BI-RADS category resulted in a higher AUC (0.910 ± 0.03) compared with physician diagnosis alone (0.820 ± 0.04) for differentiating between malignant and benign lesions.
conclusionsExposure parameters additively improved diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer and yielded more reliable results. KEY POINTS: • Differences in kVp, mAs, BT, and AGD between breasts were significantly greater in the malignant subjects than benign and healthy subjects. • The model combining exposure parameters with the BI-RADS category resulted in a higher AUC compared with the physician's diagnosis for differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. • Exposure parameters additively improved diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32979051What 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.