ArticleEcancermedicalscience2022
Contrast-enhanced mammography predicts pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography in evaluating breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography vs. Breast MRI for Assessing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response: A Prospective Clinical Comparison Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities with Special Focus on Pathology Concordance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recently, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as a reliable alternative to breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of pathological response in breast cancer patients. Our study sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CEM to predict pathological complete response (pCR) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Methods: We retrieved the medical records of patients who underwent NACT at our institution. Using post-surgery pCR, morphological evidence and CEM enhancement tumours were classified as follows: 1) radiologic complete response (rCR); 2) functional radiological complete response (frCR); and 3) non-complete response. Initially, we used multivariate analyses adjusted by clinical variables and frCR or rCR to determine which variables affected pathological response. Then, CEM diagnostic accuracy to discriminate pCR was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves in univariate and multivariate models including either frCR or rCR. Results: A total of 48 patients were included in our study. Most patients (68.7%) were hormone receptor (HR)+ and 41.6% (20) of the patients achieved pCR. Using univariate logistic regression analyses we found that HR status, HER2 status, rCR and frCR had a significant impact on CEM diagnostic accuracy. Exploratory analyses found that CEM sensitivity was higher for HR- tumours. Multivariate logistic regression analyses found 60% sensitivity, 92.9% specificity and 79.2% accuracy in a model that included clinical variables and rCR. Conclusion: CEM is a reliable alternative to high-cost, time-consuming breast MRI that predicts pCR in patients undergoing NACT; CEM diagnostic accuracy was higher among patients who harboured HR- tumours.
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.