ArticleAcademic radiology2024
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Women with Palpable Breast Abnormalities.
Article in Academic radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance of lesion conspicuity on contrast-enhanced mammography.European radiology · 2026Article
- 조영증강 유방촬영술: 현재의 임상적 활용과 미래 방향에 대한 종합적 고찰.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesTo examine the role of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the work-up of palpable breast abnormalities. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-center combination prospective-retrospective study, women with palpable breast abnormalities underwent CEM evaluation prospectively, comprising the acquisition of low energy (LE) images and recombined images (RI) which depict enhancement, followed by targeted ultrasound (US). Two independent readers retrospectively reviewed the imaging and assigned BI-RADS assessment based on LE alone, LE plus US, RI with LE plus US (CEM plus US), and RI alone. Pathology results or 1-year follow-up imaging served as the reference standard.
results237 women with 262 palpable abnormalities were included (mean age, 51 years). Of the 262 palpable abnormalities, 116/262 (44%) had no imaging correlate and 242/262 (92%) were benign. RI alone had better specificity compared to LE plus US (Reader 1, 94% versus 89% (p = 0.009); Reader 2, 93% versus 88% (p = 0.03)), better positive predictive value (Reader 1, 52% versus 42% (p = 0.04); Reader 2, 53% versus 42% (p = 0.04)), and better accuracy (Reader 1, 93% versus 89% (p = 0.05); Reader 2, 93% versus 90% (p = 0.06)). CEM plus US was not significantly different in performance metrics versus LE plus US.
conclusionRI had better specificity compared to LE in combination with US. There was no difference in performance between CEM plus US and LE plus US, likely reflecting the weight US carries in radiologist decision-making. However, the results indicate that the absence of enhancement on RI in the setting of palpable lesions may help avoid benign biopsies.
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.