Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36230540›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging: An Added Value in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, a Systematic Review.

Maria Silvia De Feo, Marko Magdi Abdou Sidrak, Miriam Conte, Viviana Frantellizzi, Andrea Marongiu, Flaminia De Cristofaro, Susanna Nuvoli, Angela Spanu, Giuseppe De Vincentis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The current role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2023
    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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Silvia De FeoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomo-Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Marko Magdi Abdou SidrakDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomo-Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Miriam ConteDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomo-Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Viviana FrantellizziDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomo-Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3497-4236
Andrea MarongiuUnit of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy.
Flaminia De CristofaroDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomo-Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Susanna NuvoliUnit of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7194-985X
Angela SpanuUnit of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5753-399X
Giuseppe De VincentisDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomo-Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4690-1528
Sapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Sassari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreast cancer is the most common solid tumor and the second highest cause of death in the United States. Detection and diagnosis of breast tumors includes various imaging modalities, such as mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US), and contrast-enhancement MRI. Breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) is an emerging tool, whereas morphological imaging has the disadvantage of a higher absorbed dose. Our aim was to assess if this imaging method is a more valuable choice in detecting breast malignant lesions compared to morphological counterparts.

methodsresearch on Medline from 1995 to June 2022 was conducted. Studies that compared at least one anatomical imaging modality with BSGI were screened and assessed through QUADAS2 for risk of bias and applicability concerns assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) were reported.

resultsA total of 15 studies compared BSGI with MMG, US, and MRI. BSGI sensitivity was similar to MRI, but specificity was higher. Specificity was always higher than MMG and US. BSGI had higher PPV and NPV. When used for the evaluation of a suspected breast lesion, the overall sensitivity was better than the examined overall sensitivity when BSGI was excluded. Risk of bias and applicability concerns domain showed mainly low risk of bias.

conclusionBSGI is a valuable imaging modality with similar sensitivity to MRI but higher specificity, although at the cost of higher radiation burden.

Indexed as

breast specific gamma imagingBSGI and MMGBSGI and MRIBSGI and ultrasoundmammographyMRIMRSIultrasoundUS

Identifiers

PMID36230540
PMCPMC9559460
OpenAlexW4297147468

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.