Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36271228›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for microcalcifications and margins to microcalcifications in breast specimens.

Claudia Neubauer, Jannina Samantha Yilmaz, Peter Bronsert, Martin Pichotka, Fabian Bamberg, Marisa Windfuhr-Blum, Thalia Erbes, Jakob Neubauer

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Claudia NeubauerDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. claudia.neubauer@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
Jannina Samantha YilmazDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Peter BronsertInstitute for Surgical Pathology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Martin PichotkaMedical Physics, Department of Radiology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Fabian BambergDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Marisa Windfuhr-BlumDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Thalia ErbesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Jakob NeubauerDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate determination of resection margins in breast specimens is important as complete removal of malignancy is a prerequisite for patients' outcome. Mammography (DM) as 2D-technique provides only limited value in margin assessment. Therefore, we investigated whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has incremental value in assessing margins to microcalcifications. Three independent readers investigated breast specimens for presence of microcalcifications and the smallest distance to margins. Histopathology served as gold standard. Microcalcifications were detected in 15 out of 21 included specimens (71%). Pooled sensitivity for DM, DBT and CBCT for microcalcifications compared to preoperative DM was 0.98 (CI 0.94-0.99), 0.83 (CI 0.73-0.94) and 0.94 (CI 0.87-0.99), pooled specificity was 0.99 (CI 0.99-0.99), 0.73 (CI 0.51-0.96) and 0.60 (CI 0.35-0.85). Mean measurement error for margin determination for DM, DBT and CBCT was 10 mm, 14 mm and 6 mm (p = 0.002) with significant difference between CBCT and the other devices (p < 0.03). Mean reading time required by the readers to analyze DM, DBT and CBCT, was 36, 43 and 54 s (p < 0.001). Although DM allows reliable detection of microcalcifications, measurement of resection margin was significantly more accurate with CBCT. Thus, a combination of methods or improved CBCT might provide a more accurate determination of disease-free margins in breast specimens.

Indexed as

Breast DiseasesBreast NeoplasmsCalcinosisBreastCone-Beam Computed TomographyFemaleHumansMammographyMargins of Excision

Identifiers

PMID36271228
PMCPMC9587219

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.