Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38227202›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Current use and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM): a survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

Simone Schiaffino, Andrea Cozzi, Paola Clauser, Elisabetta Giannotti, Maria Adele Marino, Thiemo J A van Nijnatten, Pascal A T Baltzer, Marc B I Lobbes, Ritse M Mann, Katja Pinker and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Use of contrast-enhanced mammography for preoperative prediction of lymphovascular invasion status in invasive breast cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

13 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Simone Schiaffino *Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Via Tesserete 46, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland. simone.schiaffino@eoc.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4243-888X
Andrea Cozzi *Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Via Tesserete 46, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Paola Clauser *Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Elisabetta Giannotti *Cambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Maria Adele Marino *Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphologic and Functional Imaging, Università degli Studi di Messina, Messina, Italy.
Thiemo J A van Nijnatten *Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Pascal A T Baltzer *Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marc B I Lobbes *Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Ritse M Mann *Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katja Pinker *Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Michael H Fuchsjäger *Division of General Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Ruud M Pijnappel *Department of Imaging, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)
Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale · CHMedical University of Vienna · ATCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBMaastricht University · NLMedical University of Graz · ATMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Messina · ITUtrecht University · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo perform a survey among members of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) regarding the use of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

methodsA panel of nine board-certified radiologists developed a 29-item online questionnaire, distributed to all EUSOBI members (inside and outside Europe) from January 25 to March 10, 2023. CEM implementation, examination protocols, reporting strategies, and current and future CEM indications were investigated. Replies were exploratively analyzed with descriptive and non-parametric statistics.

resultsAmong 434 respondents (74.9% from Europe), 50% (217/434) declared to use CEM, 155/217 (71.4%) seeing less than 200 CEMs per year. CEM use was associated with academic settings and high breast imaging workload (p < 0.001). The lack of CEM adoption was most commonly due to the perceived absence of a clinical need (65.0%) and the lack of resources to acquire CEM-capable systems (37.3%). CEM protocols varied widely, but most respondents (61.3%) had already adopted the 2022 ACR CEM BI-RADS® lexicon. CEM use in patients with contraindications to MRI was the most common current indication (80.6%), followed by preoperative staging (68.7%). Patients with MRI contraindications also represented the most commonly foreseen CEM indication (88.0%), followed by the work-up of inconclusive findings at non-contrast examinations (61.5%) and supplemental imaging in dense breasts (53.0%). Respondents declaring CEM use and higher CEM experience gave significantly more current (p = 0.004) and future indications (p < 0.001).

conclusionsDespite a trend towards academic high-workload settings and its prevalent use in patients with MRI contraindications, CEM use and progressive experience were associated with increased confidence in the technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In this first survey on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) use and perspectives among the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) members, the perceived absence of a clinical need chiefly drove the 50% CEM adoption rate. CEM adoption and progressive experience were associated with more extended current and future indications. KEY POINTS: • Among the 434 members of the European Society of Breast Imaging who completed this survey, 50% declared to use contrast-enhanced mammography in clinical practice. • Due to the perceived absence of a clinical need, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is still prevalently used as a replacement for MRI in patients with MRI contraindications. • The number of current and future CEM indications marked by respondents was associated with their degree of CEM experience.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsContrast MediaMammographySocieties, MedicalEuropeFemaleHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesContrast MediaBreast neoplasmsContrast mediaMammographySurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38227202
OpenAlexW4390918595

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.