ArticleGland surgery2024
Accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography for assessing breast cancer tumor size-comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Gland surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT, MRI, and mammography for breast cancer characterization.European radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate preoperative assessment of tumor size is important in developing a surgical plan for breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of tumor size and to analyze the factors influencing the discordance. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with breast cancer who underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced CBBCT (CE-CBBCT) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and received a complete pathologic diagnosis from August 2020 to December 2021 were included, using the pathological result as the gold standard. Two radiologists assessed the CBBCT and MRI features and measured the tumor size with a 2-week washout period. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess inter-observer reproducibility and agreement based on CBBCT, MRI and pathology. Univariate analyses of differences in clinical, pathological and CBBCT/MRI features between the concordant and discordant groups was performed using the Results: A total of 115 female breast cancer patients (115 lesions) were included. All patients had a single malignant tumor of the unilateral breast. The reproducibility and the agreement ranged from moderate to excellent (ICC =0.607-0.983). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses showed that the cut-off values of CBBCT-pathology and MRI-pathology discordance were 2.25 and 2.65 cm, respectively. CBBCT/MRI-pathology concordance was significantly associated with the extent of pathology, lesion type, presence of calcification, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and fatty infiltration (P<0.05). In lesions containing calcification, the difference of CBBCT-pathology was significantly smaller than MRI-pathology (P=0.021). Non-mass enhancement (NME) was the main predictor of CBBCT- or MRI-pathology discordance [odds ratio (OR) =3.293-6.469, P<0.05], and HER2 positivity was a predictor of CBBCT-pathology discordance (OR =3.514, P=0.019). Conclusions: CBBCT and MRI have comparable accuracy in measurement of tumor size, and CBBCT is advantageous in assessing the size of calcified lesions. NME and HER2 positivity are significant predictors of CBBCT-pathology discordance. This suggests that CBBCT might serve as an alternative imaging technique to assess tumor size when patients do not tolerate 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.