ArticleCancers2021
Contrast-Enhanced Mammographic Features of In Situ and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Manifesting Microcalcifications Only: Help to Predict Underestimation?
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the malignancy prediction of breast cancer based on the integration of radiomics features from dual-view mammography and clinical parameters.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Trial
- Fewer breast cancers during post-treatment surveillance among patients initially staged using contrast-based imaging.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography on Personalized Surgical Decision-Making in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Multicentre Pilot Observational Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and MRI for breast non-mass microcalcifications: a novel Malignant Calcification Score in contrast-enhanced mammography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Breast microcalcifications as indicators of bone metastasis risk in early-stage breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An update on multimodal imaging strategies for nipple discharge: from detection to decision.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Malignancy risk stratification prediction of BI-RADS 4B calcifications based on contrast-enhanced mammographic features: a multicenter study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Predicting Non-Mass Breast Cancer Utilizing Ultrasound and Molybdenum Target X-Ray Characteristics.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Utility of detection of breast calcifications with integrated real-time radiography system (IRRS) during digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided vacuum assisted biopsy (VAB): initial single-center experience.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- A Novel Nomogram Model to Identify Candidates and Predict the Possibility of Benefit From Primary Tumor Resection Among Female Patients With Metastatic Infiltrating Duct Carcinoma of the Breast: A Large Cohort Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Screening Multifocal and Multicentric Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe contrast-enhanced mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) manifesting microcalcifications only on mammograms were evaluated to determine whether they could predict IDC underestimation.
methodsWe reviewed patients who underwent mammography-guided biopsy on suspicious breast microcalcifications only and received contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) within 2 weeks before the biopsy. Those patients who were proven to have cancers (DCIS or IDC) by biopsy and subsequently had surgical treatment in our hospital were included for analysis. The presence or absence, size, morphology and texture of enhancement on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography were reviewed by consensus of two radiologists.
resultsA total of 49 patients were included for analysis. Forty patients (81.6%) showed enhancement, including 18 (45%) DCIS and 22 (55%) IDC patients. All nine unenhanced cancers were pure DCIS. Pure DCIS showed 72.22% nonmass enhancement and 83.33% pure ground glass enhancement. IDC showed more mass (72.2% vs. 27.8%) and solid enhancements (83.33% vs. 16.67%). The cancer and texture of enhancement were significantly different between pure DCIS and IDC, with moderate diagnostic performance for the former (
conclusionsNonmass and pure ground glass enhancements were closely related to pure DCIS, and cases showing mass and unpurified solid enhancements should be suspected as IDC. Unenhanced DCIS with microcalcifications only has a low DCIS upgrade rate. The CESM-enhanced features could feasibly predict IDC underestimation.
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.