Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38607514›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2024

Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography.

Catherine Depretto, Elisa D'Ascoli, Gianmarco Della Pepa, Giovanni Irmici, Claudia De Berardinis, Daniela Ballerini, Alice Bonanomi, Eleonora Ancona, Claudio Ferranti, Gianfranco Paride Scaperrotta

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine DeprettoFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Elisa D'AscoliFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy. elisadascoli@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0193-6930
Gianmarco Della PepaFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni IrmiciFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Claudia De BerardinisFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Daniela BalleriniFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Alice BonanomiFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Eleonora AnconaFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Claudio FerrantiFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Gianfranco Paride ScaperrottaFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the role of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in predicting the malignancy of breast calcifications. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious calcifications (BIRADS 4) who underwent CEM and stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) at our institution. We assessed the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CEM in predicting malignancy of microcalcifications with a 95% confidence interval; we performed an overall analysis and a subgroup analysis stratified into group A-low risk (BIRADS 4a) and group B-medium/high risk (BIRADS 4b-4c). We then evaluated the correlation between enhancement and tumour proliferation index (Ki-67) for all malignant lesions.

resultsData from 182 patients with 184 lesions were collected. Overall the SE of CEM in predicting the malignancy of microcalcifications was 0.70, SP was 0.85, the PPV was 0.82, the NPV was 0.76 and AUC was 0.78. SE in group A was 0.89, SP was 0.89, PPV was 0.57, NPV was 0.98 and AUC was 0.75. SE in group B was 0.68, SP was 0.80, PPV was 0.87, NPV was 0.57 and AUC was 0.75. Among malignant microcalcifications that showed enhancement (N = 52), 61.5% had Ki-67 ≥ 20% and 38.5% had low Ki-67 values. Among the lesions that did not show enhancement (N = 22), 90.9% had Ki-67 < 20% and 9.1% showed high Ki-67 values 20%.

conclusionsThe absence of enhancement can be used as an indicative parameter for the absence of disease in cases of low-suspicious microcalcifications, but not in intermediate-high suspicious ones for which biopsy remains mandatory and can be used to distinguish indolent lesions from more aggressive neoplasms, with consequent reduction of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCalcinosisContrast MediaMammographySensitivity and SpecificityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast DiseasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaContrast enhanced mammographyDuctal carcinoma in situKi-67Microcalcifications

Identifiers

PMID38607514
OpenAlexW4394762678

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.