Trial reportEuropean radiology experimental2023
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI for breast cancer staging: detection of additional malignant lesions not seen on conventional imaging.
Trial report in European radiology experimental, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of the nipple-areola complex: data from a real-world setting.European radiology · 2026Article
- How to optimise breast cancer staging with contrast-enhanced mammography: current evidence and clinical implications.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Clinical Applications and Decision-Making Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and MRI: A Recent Structured Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative assessment of primary operable breast cancer: Results from a prospective, two-centre study.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- PEM as an adjunct to MRI or CESM for characterizing non-mass enhancement: a retrospective two-arm diagnostic study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Preoperative Breast MRI in Surgical Decision-Making for Breast Cancer: Clinical Value Beyond Sensitivity.Cancers · 2026Review
- Generating synthetic CEM from low-energy images using deep learning: A future without contrast media? A proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast MRI: a multidimensional cost-effectiveness analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Preliminary evaluation of image quality in supine breast MRI using a dedicated wearable coil and accelerometer-based motion correction.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Deep-learning prediction of breast cancer hormone receptor status from CEM: a preliminary study.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Article
- Preoperative Imaging in breast cancer staging: Can CEM stand alone?La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography for tumor size assessment and detection of multifocal and multicentric disease in breast cancer subtypes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Monitoring Pharmacological Treatment of Breast Cancer with MRI.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Detection of a contralateral breast malignancy using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) overlooked by initial MRI scan.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Evaluation of Breast Lesions: An Initial Experience.Cureus · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography for breast cancer detection and diagnosis with high concentration iodinated contrast medium.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography vs MRI: Which breast imaging modality leads in lesion detection?European radiology · 2025Article
- A head-to-head comparison of breast lesion's conspicuity at contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI.European radiology · 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
backgroundContrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is more available than MRI for breast cancer staging but may not be as sensitive in assessing disease extent. We compared CEM and MRI in this setting.
methodsFifty-nine women with invasive breast cancer underwent preoperative CEM and MRI. Independent pairs of radiologists read CEM studies (after reviewing a 9-case set prior to study commencement) and MRI studies (with between 5 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging). Additional lesions were assigned National Breast Cancer Centre (NBCC) scores. Positive lesions (graded NBCC ≥ 3) likely to influence surgical management underwent ultrasound and/or needle biopsy. True-positive lesions were positive on imaging and pathology (invasive or in situ). False-positive lesions were positive on imaging but negative on pathology (high-risk or benign) or follow-up. False-negative lesions were negative on imaging (NBCC < 3 or not identified) but positive on pathology.
resultsThe 59 women had 68 biopsy-proven malignant lesions detected on mammography/ultrasound, of which MRI demonstrated 66 (97%) and CEM 67 (99%) (p = 1.000). Forty-one additional lesions were detected in 29 patients: six of 41 (15%) on CEM only, 23/41 (56%) on MRI only, 12/41 (29%) on both; CEM detected 1/6 and MRI 6/6 malignant additional lesions (p = 0.063), with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1/13 (8%) and 6/26 (23%) (p = 0.276).
conclusionsWhile MRI and CEM were both highly sensitive for lesions detected at mammography/ultrasound, CEM may not be as sensitive as MRI in detecting additional otherwise occult foci of malignancy.
trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12613000684729.
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.