ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2020
Assessment of the additional clinical potential of X-ray dark-field imaging for breast cancer in a preclinical setup.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Multi-contrast machine learning improves schistosomiasis diagnostic performance.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Correcting directional dark field x-ray imaging artefacts using position dependent image deblurring and attenuation removal.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Exploration of the X-ray Dark-Field Signal in Mineral Building Materials.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Tunable X-ray dark-field imaging for sub-resolution feature size quantification in porous media.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Hard X-ray omnidirectional differential phase and dark-field imaging.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
20 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMammography can identify calcifications up to 50-100 μm in size as a surrogate parameter for breast cancer or ductal carcinoma
methodsTalbot-Lau X-ray phase-contrast imaging and X-ray dark-field imaging were used to acquire images of breast specimens. The radiation dosage with the technique is comparable with conventional mammography. Three X-ray gratings with periods of 5-10 µm between the X-ray tube and the flat-panel detector provide three different images in a single sequence: the conventional attenuation image, differential phase image, and dark-field image. The images were read by radiologists. Radiological findings were marked and examined pathologically. The results were described in a descriptive manner.
resultsA total of 81 breast specimens were investigated with the two methods; 199 significant structures were processed pathologically, consisting of 123 benign and 76 malignant lesions (DCIS or invasive breast cancer). X-ray dark-field imaging identified 15 additional histologically confirmed carcinoma lesions that were visible but not declared suspicious on digital mammography alone. Another four malignant lesions that were not visible on mammography were exclusively detected with X-ray dark-field imaging.
conclusionsAdding X-ray dark-field imaging to digital mammography increases the detection rate for breast cancer and DCIS associated lesions with micrometer-sized calcifications.The use of X-ray dark-field imaging may be able to provide more accurate and detailed radiological classification of suspicious breast lesions.Adding X-ray dark-field imaging to mammography may be able to increase the detection rate and improve preoperative planning in deciding between mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy, particularly in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer.
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.