ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2023
Inter-reader agreement of breast magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-reader retrospective study.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast tissue density and its correlation with pathologic response: a retrospective artificial intelligence-enhanced radiological study.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer management: current applications, limitations, and future directions.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026Review
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Cancer Follow-Up: Diagnostic Value in Suspected Recurrence.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- The established chest MRI score for cystic fibrosis can be applied to contrast agent-free matrix pencil decomposition functional MRI: a multireader analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
14 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are nowadays used in breast imaging but studies about their inter-reader agreement are lacking. Therefore, we compared the inter-reader agreement of CEM and MRI in breast cancer diagnosis in the same patients.
methodsBreast MRI and CEM exams performed in a single center (09/2020-09/2021) for an IRB-approved study were retrospectively and independently evaluated by four radiologists of two different centers with different levels of experience who were blinded to the clinical and other imaging data. The reference standard was the histological diagnosis or at least 1-year negative imaging follow-up. Inter-reader agreement was examined using Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa (κ) statistics and compared with the Wald test.
resultsOf the 750 patients, 395 met inclusion criteria (44.5 ± 14 years old), with 752 breasts available for CEM and MRI. Overall agreement was moderate (κ = 0.60) for MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM. For expert readers, the agreement was substantial (κ = 0.77) for MRI and almost perfect (κ = 0.82) for CEM; for non-expert readers was fair (κ = 0.39); and for MRI and moderate (κ = 0.57) for CEM. Pairwise agreement between expert readers and non-expert readers was moderate (κ = 0.50) for breast MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM and it showed a statistically superior agreement of the expert over the non-expert readers only for MRI (p = 0.011) and not for CEM (p = 0.062).
conclusionsThe agreement of CEM was superior to that of MRI (p = 0.012), including for both expert (p = 0.031) and non-expert readers (p = 0.005).
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.