Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37889284›Full record

ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023

[Use of contrast-enhanced mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer].

Uwe Fischer, Felix Diekmann, Thomas Helbich, Heike Preibsch, Michael Püsken, Evelyn Wenkel, Susanne Wienbeck, Eva Maria Fallenberg

Open access · hybridAbstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Breast Imaging Physics in Mammography (Part II).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Uwe FischerDiagnostisches Brustzentrum Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland. uwfisch@web.de.
Felix DiekmannInstitut für Radiologische Diagnostik, Krankenhaus St. Joseph-Stift, Schwachhauser Heerstr. 54, 28209, Bremen, Deutschland.
Thomas HelbichUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Abteilung für Allgemeine und Pädiatrische Radiologie, Medizinische Universität Wien/AKH WIEN, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.
Heike PreibschDiagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland.
Michael PüskenInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland.
Evelyn WenkelMedizinische Fakultät, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Deutschland.
Susanne WienbeckRadiologie Schwarzer Bär MVZ, Schwarzer Bär 8, 30449, Hannover, Deutschland.
Eva Maria FallenbergInstitut für diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie, School of Medicine & Klinikum rechts der Isar Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Deutschland.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin · DEKrankenhaus St. Joseph-Stift Bremen · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEMünchen Klinik · DETechnical University of Munich · DEUniversitätsklinikum Tübingen · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an imaging method that is able to improve visualization of intramammary tumors after peripheral venous administration of an iodine-containing contrast medium (ICM). OBJECTIVES AND

methodsThe current significance of CEM is discussed.

resultsStudies were able to show an advantage of CEM in the diagnosis of breast cancer compared to mammography, especially for women with dense breasts. Indications for CEM currently depend on the availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). If MRI is available, CEM is indicated in those cases when MRI cannot be performed. Use of CEM for breast cancer screening is currently viewed critically. This view can change when results and updated assessments of large CEM studies in Europe and USA become available. Patients must be informed about the use of an ICM. As ICM administration for CEM is carried out in a similar manner to established imaging methods, the authors expect the use of ICM for CEM to be unproblematic as long as general contraindications are adhered to.

conclusionsIn the future, CEM could have greater importance for the diagnosis of breast cancer, as this imaging method has diagnostic advantages compared to conventional mammography. A great advantage of CEM is its availability. For those who use breast MRI, CEM is helpful when MRI is not feasible due to contraindications or other reasons.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastContrast MediaFemaleForecastingHumansMammographyContrast MediaBreast cancerCancer screeningIodinated contrast mediaPatient educationRadiological imaging

Identifiers

PMID37889284
PMCPMC10692004
OpenAlexW4387965318

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.