ArticleCancers2022
Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Radiation Dose in Advanced X-Ray Mammographic Modalities and Evaluation of Potential Influencing Factors.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast MRI in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: principles, challenges, and opportunities.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Advances, Challenges, and Case-Based Insights.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- 조영증강 유방촬영술: 현재의 임상적 활용과 미래 방향에 대한 종합적 고찰.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance.European radiology · 2025Article
- Scanning K-edge subtraction (SKES) imaging with laser-compton x-ray sources.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels for Mammography Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Contrast Enhance, Implants, Spot Compression, Magnification and Stereotactic Biopsy in Dubai Health Sector.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in high-dense breasts: a narrative review.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2025Review
- The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Current use and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM): a survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).European radiology · 2024Article
- Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Breast Cancer Detection Using a Low-Dose Positron Emission Digital Mammography System.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Inter-reader agreement of breast magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-reader retrospective study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technique and initial outcomes.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Conventional Imaging in Women with Dense Breasts.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Barriers to Implementation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Clinical Practice:AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The radiation dose associated with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has been investigated only by single-center studies. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the radiation dose between two centers performing CEM within two prospective studies, using the same type of equipment. The CEM mean glandular dose (MGD) was computed for low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) images and their sum was calculated for each view. MGD and related parameters (entrance dose, breast thickness, compression, and density) were compared between the two centers using the Mann−Whitney test. Finally, per-patient MGD was calculated by pooling the two datasets and determining the contribution of LE and HE images. A total of 348 CEM examinations were analyzed (228 from Center 1 and 120 from Center 2). The median total MGD per view was 2.33 mGy (interquartile range 2.19−2.51 mGy) at Center 1 and 2.46 mGy (interquartile range 2.32−2.70 mGy) at Center 2, with a 0.15 mGy median difference (p < 0.001) equal to 6.2%. LE-images contributed between 64% and 77% to the total patient dose in CEM, with the remaining 23−36% being associated with HE images. The mean radiation dose for a two-view bilateral CEM exam was 4.90 mGy, about 30% higher than for digital mammography.
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.