Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33120285›Full record

ArticleClinical imaging2021

Preoperative breast MR imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer: Comparison of outcomes based on mammographic modality, breast density and breast parenchymal enhancement.

Azadeh Elmi, Emily F Conant, Andrew Kozlov, Anthony J Young, Qi Long, Robert K Doot, Elizabeth S McDonald

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Azadeh ElmiBreast Imaging Division, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Emily F ConantBreast Imaging Division, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: Emily.conant@uphs.upenn.edu.
Andrew KozlovBreast Imaging Division, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: Andrew.kozlov@uphs.upenn.edu.
Anthony J YoungDepartment of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: Anthony.Young@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Qi LongDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: qlong@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Robert K DootDepartment of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: robdoot@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Elizabeth S McDonaldBreast Imaging Division, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: elizabeth.mcdonald@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHELLEY L BERGER · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the role of MR for assessment of extent of disease in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer imaged with digital mammography (DM) alone versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

methodsRetrospective review was conducted of 401 consecutive breast MR exams (10/1/2013-7/31/2015) from women who underwent preoperative MR for newly diagnosed breast cancer by either DM or DBT, leaving 388 exams (201 DM and 187 DBT). MR detection of additional, otherwise occult, disease was stratified by modality, breast density, and background parenchymal enhancement. A true-positive finding was defined as malignancy in the ipsilateral-breast >2 cm away from the index-lesion or in the contralateral breast.

results50 additional malignancies were detected in 388 exams (12.9%), 37 ipsilateral and 13 contralateral. There was no difference in the MR detection of additional disease in women imaged by either DM versus DBT (p = 0.53). In patients with DM, there was no significant difference in the rate of MR additional cancer detection in dense versus non-dense breasts (p = 0.790). However, in patients with DBT, MR detected significantly more additional sites of malignancy in dense compared to non-dense breasts (p = 0.017). There was no difference in false-positive MR exams (p = 0.470) for DM versus DBT. For both DM and DBT cohorts, higher MR background parenchymal enhancement was associated with higher false-positive (p = 0.040) but no significant difference in true-positive exams.

conclusionsAmong patients with DBT imaging at cancer diagnosis, women with dense breasts appear to benefit more from preoperative MR than non-dense women. In women imaged only with DM, MR finds additional malignancy across all breast densities.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsBreastFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyRetrospective StudiesBreast cancerBreast MRIDense breastStagingTomosynthesis

Identifiers

PMID33120285
PMCPMC10870106
OpenAlexW3092840482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.