Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35919242›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2022

Contrast-enhanced mammography predicts pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer.

Daniel Canteros, Benjamin Walbaum, Miguel Córdova-Delgado, Andrés Torrealba, Constanza Reyes, María Elena Navarro, Dravna Razmilic, Mauricio Camus, Francisco Dominguez, Orieta Navarrete and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel CanterosDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Benjamin WalbaumDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Miguel Córdova-DelgadoDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Andrés TorrealbaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Constanza ReyesDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
María Elena NavarroDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Dravna RazmilicDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Mauricio CamusDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Francisco DominguezDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Orieta NavarreteDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Mauricio P PintoDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Gonzalo PizarroDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Francisco AcevedoDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
César SánchezDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330024, Chile.
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

contrast-enhanced mammographyneoadjuvant chemotherapypathological complete responsesensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID35919242
PMCPMC9300406
OpenAlexW4281289867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.