ArticleLa Radiologia medica2021
Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- 조영증강 유방촬영술: 현재의 임상적 활용과 미래 방향에 대한 종합적 고찰.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Does Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Outperform Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detection and Characterization of Breast Lesions or Vice Versa?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Implementing the advantages of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced breast MRI in breast cancer staging.European radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Local Staging of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Diffusion kurtosis imaging and standard diffusion imaging in the magnetic resonance imaging assessment of prostate cancer.Gland surgery · 2023Review
- Impact of the systematic introduction of tomosynthesis on breast biopsies: 10 years of results.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Ultrasound Breast Imaging: From Industry to Clinical Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Gender Medicine in Clinical Radiology Practice.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Impact of contrast-enhanced mammography in surgical management of breast cancers for women with dense breasts: a dual-center, multi-disciplinary study in Asia.European radiology · 2022Article
- Comparison between two packages for pectoral muscle removal on mammographic images.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- A narrative review on current imaging applications of artificial intelligence and radiomics in oncology: focus on the three most common cancers.La Radiologia medica · 2022Review
- Structured reporting of x-ray mammography in the first diagnosis of breast cancer: a Delphi consensus proposal.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Pulmonary Lymphangitis Poses a Major Challenge for Radiologists in an Oncological Setting during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Not only lymphadenopathy: case of chest lymphangitis assessed with MRI after COVID 19 vaccine.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Article
- Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare preoperative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEM) versus digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DM + DBT) in detecting breast cancer (BC) and assessing its size. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe retrospectively included 78 patients with histological diagnosis of BC who underwent preoperative DM, DBT, and CEM over one year. Four readers, blinded to pathology and clinical information, independently evaluated DM + DBT versus CEM to detect BC and measure its size. Readers' experience ranged 3-10 years. We calculated the per-lesion cancer detection rate (CDR) and the complement of positive predictive value (1-PPV) of both methods, stratifying analysis on the total of lesions, index lesions, and additional lesions. The agreement in assessing cancer size versus pathology was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis.
results100 invasive BCs (78 index lesions and 22 additional lesions) were analyzed. Compared to DM + DBT, CEM showed higher overall CDR in less experienced readers (range 0.85-0.90 vs. 0.95-0.96), and higher CDR for additional lesions, regardless of the reader (range 0.54-0.68 vs. 0.77-0.86). CEM increased the detection of additional disease in dense breasts in all readers and non-dense breasts in less experienced readers only. The 1-PPV of CEM (range 0.10-0.18) was comparable to that of DM + DBT (range 0.09-0.19). At Bland-Altman analysis, DM + DBT and CEM showed comparable mean differences and limits of agreement in respect of pathologic cancer size.
conclusionPreoperative CEM improved the detection of additional cancer lesions compared to DM + DBT, particularly in dense breasts. CEM and DM + DBT achieved comparable performance in cancer size assessment.
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.