Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36505843›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?

Natalia Siminiak, Anna Pasiuk-Czepczyńska, Antonina Godlewska, Piotr Wojtyś, Magdalena Olejnik, Joanna Michalak, Piotr Nowaczyk, Paweł Gajdzis, Dariusz Godlewski, Marek Ruchała and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
0.5field-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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Natalia SiminiakDepartment of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Internal Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Anna Pasiuk-CzepczyńskaCancer Prevention and Epidemiology Center, Poznań, Poland.
Antonina GodlewskaDepartment of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Internal Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Piotr WojtyśCancer Prevention and Epidemiology Center, Poznań, Poland.
Magdalena OlejnikCancer Prevention and Epidemiology Center, Poznań, Poland.
Joanna MichalakCancer Prevention and Epidemiology Center, Poznań, Poland.
Piotr NowaczykBreast Surgical Oncology Department, Greater Poland Cancer Center, Poznań, Poland.
Paweł GajdzisCancer Prevention and Epidemiology Center, Poznań, Poland.
Dariusz GodlewskiCancer Prevention and Epidemiology Center, Poznań, Poland.
Marek RuchałaDepartment of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Internal Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Rafał CzepczyńskiDepartment of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Internal Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Greater Poland Cancer Center · PLPoznan University of Medical Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however their accuracies need to be compared.The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in women recalled from breast cancer screening program. Methods: The study included 402 consecutive patients recalled from breast cancer screening program, who were randomized into two groups, to undergo either CEM (202 patients) or DBT (200 patients). All visible lesions were evaluated and each suspicious lesion was histopathologically verified. Results: CEM detected 230 lesions; 119 were classified as benign and 111 as suspicious or malignant, whereas DBT identified 209 lesions; 105 were classified as benign and 104 as suspicious or malignant. In comparison to histopathology, CEM correctly detected cancer in 43 out of 44 cases, and DBT in all 33 cases, while FFDM identified 15 and 18 neoplastic lesions in two groups, respectively. CEM presented with 97% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 70% accuracy, 38% PPV and 99% NPV, while DBT showed 100% sensitivity, 60% specificity, 32%, PPV, 100% NPV and 66% accuracy. The CEM's AUC was 0.97 and DBT's 0.99. The ROC curve analysis proved a significant (p<0.000001) advantage of both CEM and DBT over FFDM, however, there was no significant difference between CEM and DBT diagnostic accuracies (p=0.23). Conclusions: In this randomized, prospective study CEM and DBT show similar diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

breast cancercontrast enhanced mammographydigital breast tomography (DBT)imaging modalitiesmammography

Identifiers

PMID36505843
PMCPMC9730826
OpenAlexW4309915880

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.