Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35451312›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022

Comparison between second-look ultrasound and second-look digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of additional lesions with presurgical CESM.

Chiara Bellini, Giulia Bicchierai, Francesco Amato, Elena Savi, Diego De Benedetto, Federica Di Naro, Cecilia Boeri, Ermanno Vanzi, Vittorio Miele, Jacopo Nori

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chiara BelliniDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4243-8719
Giulia BicchieraiDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Francesco AmatoDiagnostic Senology Unit - Radiology Dpt., "Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio", Agrigento, Italy.
Elena SaviDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Diego De BenedettoDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Federica Di NaroDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Cecilia BoeriDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Ermanno VanziDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Vittorio MieleDepartment of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Jacopo NoriDiagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITNuovo Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare second-look ultrasound (SL-ultrasound) with second-look digital breast tomosynthesis (SL-DBT) in the detection of additional lesions (ALs) with presurgical contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM).

methodsWe retrospectively included 121 women with 128 ALs from patients who underwent CESM for presurgical staging at our centre from September 2016 to December 2018. These ALs underwent SL-ultrasound and a retrospective review of DBT (SL-DBT) performed 1-3 weeks prior to CESM to evaluate the performance of each technique individually and in combination. ALs in CESM images were evaluated according to enhancement type (focus, mass, or non-mass), size (<10 mm or >10 mm) and level of suspicion (BI-RADS 2, 3, 4 or 5). Our gold-standard was post-biopsy histology, post-surgical specimen or >24 month negative follow-up. McNemar's test was used for the statistical analysis.

resultsOut of the 128 ALs, an imaging correlate was found for 71 (55.5 %) with ultrasound, 79 (61.7%) with DBT, 53 (41.4 %) with DBT and ultrasound, and 97 (75.8%) with ultrasound and/or DBT. SL-DBT demonstrated a higher detection rate

conclusionCombined second-look imaging (SL-DBT+ SL-ultrasound) for CESM ALs is superior to SL-DBT alone and SL-ultrasound alone. In B3 lesions, NME, and foci, the analysis of a larger sample could determine whether adding SL-ultrasound to SL-DBT is necessary or not. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Thanks to its high sensitivity, CESM is a useful tool in presurgical staging to detect the extent of the disease burden and identify ALs not detected with conventional imaging. Since CESM-guided biopsy systems are still scarcely available in clinical practice, it is necessary to look for other approaches to histologically characterize ALs detected with CESM. In our study, combined second-look imaging (SL-DBT + SL-ultrasound) showed better performance in terms of detectability of ALs, than either SL-DBT or SL-ultrasound alone, and allowed us to identify 91.2% of ALs that turned out to be malignant at final histology; for the remaining 8.8% it was still necessary to perform MRI or MRI-guided biopsy. However, this issue could be solved once CESM-guided biopsies spread in clinical practice. SL-DBT demonstrated a higher detection rate than SL-ultrasound in NME and ductal carcinoma in situ histology.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingBreastFemaleHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMammographyRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography, Mammary

Identifiers

PMID35451312
PMCPMC10996408
OpenAlexW4224216641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.