ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) compared to Breast Magnetic Resonance (MRI) in the evaluation of breast lobular neoplasia.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast MRI: a multidimensional cost-effectiveness analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Achieving single-contrast administration for enhanced chest CT and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography without compromising diagnostic quality: a comparative study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance (detection, assessment of correct disease extent and multifocality/centricity) of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Versus Breast Magnetic Resonance (MRI) in the study of lobular neoplasms.
methodsWe retrospectively selected all the patients who underwent surgery for a lobular breast neoplasm, either an in situ or an invasive tumor, and had undergone both breast CEM and MRI examinations during the pre-surgical planning. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed to assess the differences between size measurements using the different methods and the post-surgical pathological measurements, considered the gold standard. The agreement in identifying multifocality/multicentricity among the different methods and the pathology was assessed using the Kappa statistics.
resultsWe selected 19 patients, of which one presented a bilateral neoplasm. Then, the images of these 19 patients were analyzed, for a total of 52 malignant breast lesions. We found no significant differences between the post-surgical pathological size of the lesions and the calculated size with CEM and MRI (p-value of the difference respectively 0.71 and 0.47). In all 20 cases, neoplasm detection was possible both with CEM and MRI. CEM and MRI showed an excellent ability to identify multifocal and multicentric cases (K statistic equal to 0.93 for both the procedures), while K statistic was 0.11 and 0.59 for FFDM and US, respectively.
conclusionThe findings of this study suggest that CEM is a reliable imaging technique in the preoperative setting of patients with lobular neoplasm, with comparable results to breast MRI.
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.