Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37853174›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative detection of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: a comparison with low-energy image and magnetic resonance imaging.

Liping Wang, Ping Wang, Huafei Shao, Jun Li, Qinglin Yang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. 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
2.3field-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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liping WangDepartment of Radiology, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 20 Yuhuangdingdong Road, Yantai, 264000, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Ping WangDepartment of Radiology, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 20 Yuhuangdingdong Road, Yantai, 264000, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Huafei ShaoDepartment of Radiology, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 20 Yuhuangdingdong Road, Yantai, 264000, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Jun LiDepartment of Radiology, Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, 264100, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Qinglin YangDepartment of Radiology, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 20 Yuhuangdingdong Road, Yantai, 264000, Shandong, People's Republic of China. linlin345@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3886-1925
Qingdao University · CNBinzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with low-energy image (LEI) alone and with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

methodsIn this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed 98 pure DCIS lesions in 96 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within 2 weeks preoperatively. The diagnostic performances of each imaging modality, lesion morphology, and extent were evaluated.

resultsThe sensitivity of CEM to DCIS was similar to that of MRI (92.9% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.77) and was significantly higher than that of LEI alone (76.5%, p = 0.002). The sensitivity of CEM to calcified DCIS (92.4%) was not significantly different from LEI alone (92.4%) and from MRI (93.9%, p = 1.00). However, CEM contributed to the simultaneous comparison of calcifications with enhancements. CEM had considerably higher sensitivity compared with LEI alone (93.8% vs. 43.8%, p < 0.001) and performed similarly to MRI (93.8%, p = 1.00) for noncalcified DCIS. All DCIS lesions were enhanced in MRI, whereas 94.9% (93/98) were enhanced in CEM. Non-mass enhancement was the most common presentation (CEM 63.4% and MRI 66.3%). The difference between the lesion size on each imaging modality and the histopathological size was smallest in MRI, followed by CEM, and largest in LEI.

conclusionCEM was more sensitive than LEI alone and comparable to MRI in DCIS diagnosis. The enhanced morphology of DCIS in CEM was consistent with that in MRI. CEM was superior to LEI alone in size measurement of DCIS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study investigated the value of CEM in the diagnosis and evaluation of DCIS, aiming to offer a reference for the selection of examination methods for DCIS and contribute to the early diagnosis and precise treatment of DCIS. KEY POINTS: • DCIS is an important indication for breast surgery. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for DCIS treatment and prognosis. • CEM overcomes the deficiency of mammography in noncalcified DCIS diagnosis, exhibiting similar sensitivity to MRI; and CEM contributes to the comparison of calcification and enhancement of calcified DCIS, thereby outperforming MRI. • CEM is superior to LEI alone and slightly inferior to MRI in the size evaluation of DCIS.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingContrast MediaMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographySensitivity and SpecificityAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaBreast neoplasmsCarcinoma (Intraductal, Noninfiltrating)Contrast mediaMagnetic resonance imagingMammography

Identifiers

PMID37853174
OpenAlexW4387733354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.