Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37450545›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

A multicentric, single arm, prospective, stratified clinical investigation to evaluate MammoWave's ability in breast lesions detection.

Daniel Álvarez Sánchez-Bayuela, Navid Ghavami, Gianluigi Tiberi, Lorenzo Sani, Alessandro Vispa, Alessandra Bigotti, Giovanni Raspa, Mario Badia, Lorenzo Papini, Mohammad Ghavami and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Daniel Álvarez Sánchez-BayuelaUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4972-0853
Navid GhavamiUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.
Gianluigi TiberiUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8787-1295
Lorenzo SaniUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.
Alessandro VispaUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.
Alessandra BigottiUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.
Giovanni RaspaUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.
Mario BadiaUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.
Lorenzo PapiniUBT-Umbria Bioengineering Technologies, Perugia, Italy.
Mohammad GhavamiSchool of Engineering, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom.
Cristina Romero CastellanoBreast Imaging Department, Radiology Service, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Toledo, Spain.
Daniela BernardiIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4329-8121
Massimo CalabreseIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Alberto Stefano TagliaficoIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Toledo · ESLondon South Bank University · GBOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITHumanitas University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microwave imaging is a safe and promising new technology in breast radiology, avoiding discomfort of breast compression and usage of ionizing radiation. This paper presents the first prospective microwave breast imaging study during which both symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects were recruited. Specifically, a prospective multicentre international clinical trial was performed in 2020-2021, to investigate the capability of a microwave imaging device (MammoWave) in allowing distinction between breasts with no radiological finding (NF) and breasts with radiological findings (WF), i.e., with benign or malignant lesions. Each breast scan was performed with the volunteers lying on a dedicated examination table in a comfortable prone position. MammoWave output was compared to reference standard (i.e., radiologic study obtained within the last month and integrated with histological one if available and deemed necessary by responsible investigator) to classify breasts into NF/WF categories. MammoWave output consists of a selection of microwave images' features (determined prior to trials' start), which allow distinction between NF and WF breasts (using statistical significance p<0.05). 353 women were enrolled in the study (mean age 51 years ± 12 [SD], minimum age 19, maximum age 78); MammoWave data from the first 15 women of each site, all with NF breasts, were used for calibration. Following central assessor evaluation, 111 NF (48 dense) and 272 WF (136 dense) breasts were used for comparison with MammoWave output. 272 WF comprised 182 benign findings and 90 malignant histology-confirmed cancer. A sensitivity of 82.3% was achieved (95%CI: 0.78-0.87); sensitivity is maintained when limiting the investigation to histology-confirmed breasts cancer only (90 histology-confirmed breasts cancer have been included in this analysis, having sizes ranging from 3 mm to 60 mm). Specificity value of approximately 50% was achieved as expected, since thresholds were calculated (for each feature) using median value obtained after recruiting the first 15 women (of each site), all NF. This prospective trial may represent another step for introducing microwave imaging into clinical practice, for helping in breast lesion identification in asymptomatic women.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoplasmsAdultAgedBreastFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID37450545
PMCPMC10348515
OpenAlexW4384297134

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.