ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Background enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): are there qualitative and quantitative differences between imaging systems?
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical significance of lesion conspicuity on contrast-enhanced mammography.European radiology · 2026Article
- ROI-Based Quantitative Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Feasibility Study for Reproducible Enhancement Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Achieving single-contrast administration for enhanced chest CT and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography without compromising diagnostic quality: a comparative study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Beyond Cancer Detection: An AI Framework for Multidimensional Risk Profiling on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Improving the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography through lesion conspicuity and enhancement quantification.European radiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Factors Influencing Background Parenchymal Enhancement in Breast Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Retrospective Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in high-dense breasts: a narrative review.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2025Review
- Article
- Factors Influencing Background Parenchymal Enhancement in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Background parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: associations with breast density and patient's characteristics.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Current use and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM): a survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).European radiology · 2024Article
- [Use of contrast-enhanced mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of the digital mammography imaging system on overall background enhancement on recombined contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images, the overall background enhancement of two different mammography systems was compared.
methodsIn a retrospective single-center study, CESM images of n = 129 female patients who underwent CESM between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed independently by two radiologists. Two mammography machines of different manufacturers were compared qualitatively using a Likert-scale from 1 (minimal) to 4 (marked overall background enhancement) and quantitatively by placing a region of interest and measuring the intensity enhancement. Lesion conspicuity was analyzed using a Likert-scale from 1 (lesion not reliably distinguishable) to 5 (excellent lesion conspicuity). A multivariate regression was performed to test for potential biases on the quantitative results.
resultsSignificant differences in qualitative background enhancement measurements between machines A and B were observed for both readers (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). The quantitative evaluation showed significant differences in background enhancement with an average difference of 75.69 (99%-CI [74.37, 77.02]; p < 0.001). Lesion conspicuity was better for machine A for the first and second reader respectively (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001). The factor machine was the only influencing factor (p < 0.001). The factors contrast agent, breast density, age, and menstrual cycle could be excluded as potential biases.
conclusionMammography machines seem to significantly influence overall background enhancement qualitatively and quantitatively; thus, an impact on diagnostic accuracy appears possible. KEY POINTS: • Overall background enhancement on CESM differs between different vendors qualitatively and quantitatively. • Our retrospective single-center study showed consistent results of the qualitative and quantitative data analysis of overall background enhancement. • Lesion conspicuity is higher in cases of lower background enhancement on CESM.
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.