ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Chest CT for Breast Cancer Diagnosis.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Zero-Shot Domain Adaptation of 2D Mammography Lesion Detection Model for 3D Breast CT Malignancy Detection.Cancers · 2026Article
- Anaphylactic Shock Following Administration of Iodinated Computed Tomography (CT) Contrast Media: A Case Series.Cureus · 2026Article
- Neoadjuvant pyrotinib for HER2 (IHC 2+/FISH+)/HR+ breast cancer with early non-response: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Incidental Breast Findings on Chest CT: Rates of Report and Follow-Up.Radiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Application of CAD Systems in Breast Cancer Diagnosis Using Machine Learning Techniques: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Emerging nanoparticle-based x-ray imaging contrast agents for breast cancer screening.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Radiologic imaging and its current importance in breast cancer management.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Automated Identification of Breast Cancer Relapse in Computed Tomography Reports Using Natural Language Processing.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Left homonymous hemianopia as an atypical manifestation of isolated pachymeningeal metastasis secondary to breast cancer: Case report and review of the literature.Radiology case reports · 2024Article
- Breast Collagen Organization: Variance by Patient Age and Breast Quadrant.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Radiology of fibrosis. Part I: Thoracic organs.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis Risk in Breast Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Can Hounsfield units on chest CT characterize breast nodules as cystic or solid?Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2024Article
- Numb cheek syndrome in breast cancer: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Advances in PET/CT Imaging for Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We report the results of our retrospective analysis of the ability of standard chest CT scans to correctly diagnose cancer in the breast. Methods: Four hundred and fifty-three consecutive women with chest CT scans (contrast and non-contrast) preceding mammograms within one year comprise the study population. All chest CT images were reviewed by an experienced fellowship-trained chest radiologist and mammograms by an experienced fellowship-trained mammographer without the benefit of prior or ancillary studies; only four mammographic views were included for analysis. The size, location, and shape of breast masses were documented; on CT, the average Hounsfield units were measured. On both imaging modalities, the presence of lymphadenopathy, architectural distortion, skin thickening, and microcalcifications were recorded. Ultimately, the interpreting radiologist was asked to decide if a biopsy was indicated, and these recommendations were correlated with the patient’s outcome. Findings: Nineteen of four hundred and fifty-three patients had breast cancer at the time of the mammography. Breast masses were the most common finding on chest CT, leading to the recommendation for biopsy. Hounsfield units were the most important feature for discerning benign from malignant masses. CT sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT for breast cancer detection was 84.21%, 99.3%, and 98.68% compared to 78.95%, 93.78%, and 93.16% for four-view mammography. Chest CT scans with or without contrast had similar outcomes for specificity and accuracy, but sensitivity was slightly less without contrast. Chest CT alone, without the benefit of prior exams and patient recall, correctly diagnosed cancer with a p-value of <0.0001 compared to mammography with the same limitations. Conclusion: Chest CT accurately diagnosed breast cancer with few false positives and negatives and did so without the need for patient recall for additional imaging.
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.