ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2022
Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis in female patients with nipple discharge.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ductal abnormalities as primary findings on breast ultrasonography: a literature review and proposed classification.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- An update on multimodal imaging strategies for nipple discharge: from detection to decision.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis in female patients with nipple discharge.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNipple discharge is one of the most common symptoms related to the breast, but it is a presenting feature of breast cancer in 5%-12% of women.
aimsThe purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the evaluation of patients with nipple discharge and to compare it with mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS AND
resultsThis retrospective study included 53 patients with nipple discharge. All patients underwent DBT, and results were compared to MMG, breast US, and MRI. Radiological findings for each method were categorized according to BI-RADS classification: categories 1-2 were considered negative and categories 3-5 positive. If a tissue specimen was obtained, the final diagnosis was established based on the results of histopathological analysis; otherwise, a clinical follow-up was required for at least 2 years to confirm benign radiological findings. Measures of diagnostic accuracy of DBT, MMG, US, and MRI were calculated and compared.
resultsFinal histopathological analysis revealed six malignant breast lesions, all of which were detected in patients with pathologic nipple discharge. DBT and MRI exhibited high sensitivity (100%) and high negative predictive value (100%) for the detection of breast cancer in patients with nipple discharge. DBT showed higher specificity compared to MRI (82.9% vs. 61.9%). Sensitivity and specificity of MMG were 83.3% and 76.6%, respectively. Breast US was determined to have a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 57.5%.
conclusionDBT exhibited higher specificity than MRI at the same level of sensitivity and negative predictive value. Therefore, the use of DBT should be considered as an alternative to MRI in the assessment of patients with nipple discharge.
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.