Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36900751›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities with Special Focus on Pathology Concordance.

Alicia M Pereslucha, Danielle M Wenger, Michael F Morris, Zeynep Bostanci Aydi

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prospective study onBritish journal of cancer · 2026
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Monitoring Pharmacological Treatment of Breast Cancer with MRI.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Alicia M PeresluchaDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA.
Danielle M WengerCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1375-2872
Michael F MorrisDivision of Diagnostic Imaging, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA.
Zeynep Bostanci AydiDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2521-6479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer. It is characterized by a unique growth pattern making it difficult to detect on conventional breast imaging. ILC can be multicentric, multifocal, and bilateral, with a high likelihood of incomplete excision after breast-conserving surgery. We reviewed the conventional as well as newly emerging imaging modalities for detecting and determining the extent of ILC- and compared the main advantages of MRI vs. contrast-enhanced mammogram (CEM). Our review of the literature finds that MRI and CEM clearly surpass conventional breast imaging in terms of sensitivity, specificity, ipsilateral and contralateral cancer detection, concordance, and estimation of tumor size for ILC. Both MRI and CEM have each been shown to enhance surgical outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed ILC that had one of these imaging modalities added to their preoperative workup.

Indexed as

breastconcordancecontrast-enhanced mammogramimaginginvasive lobular cancerMRIradiomics

Identifiers

PMID36900751
PMCPMC10000992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read115
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.