ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Accuracy and precision of contrast enhanced mammography versus MRI for predicting breast cancer size: how "good" are they really?
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in the Era of De-Escalation: Role, Limits, and Clinical Implications for Risk-Adapted Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumor size in architectural distortions: a comparison of DM, DBT, US, CEM, and MRI.European radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Lesion Assessment: Accuracy and Surgical Impact.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the accuracy and precision of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)
methodsProspective study, 59 women with invasive breast cancer on needle biopsy underwent CEM and breast MRI. Two breast radiologists read each patient's study, with access limited to one modality. CEM lesion size was measured using low-energy and recombined images and on MRI, the first post-contrast series. Extent of abnormality per quadrant was measured for multifocal lesions. Reference standards were size of largest invasive malignant lesion, invasive (PathInvasive) and whole (PathTotal). Pre-defined clinical concordance ±10 mm.
resultsMean patient age 56 years, 42 (71%) asymptomatic. Lesions were invasive ductal carcinoma 40 (68%) with ductal carcinoma
conclusionNeither CEM nor MRI have sufficient accuracy to direct changes in planned treatment without needle biopsy confirmation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Despite small mean differences in lesion size estimates using CEM or MRI, the 95% limits of agreement do not meet clinically acceptable levels.
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.