ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2024
Diagnostic value of qualitative and quantitative enhancement parameters on contrast-enhanced mammography
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ground-Glass Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A CT-Inspired Qualitative Descriptor for Breast Lesion Characterization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Deep Learning-Derived Malignancy Scoring in Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype Assessment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Improving the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography through lesion conspicuity and enhancement quantification.European radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Lesion Assessment: Accuracy and Surgical Impact.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Does Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Outperform Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detection and Characterization of Breast Lesions or Vice Versa?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether qualitative and quantitative enhancement parameters obtained from contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) can be used in predicting malignancy.
methodsAfter review board approval, consecutive 136 suspicious lesions with definite diagnosis were retrospectively analyzed on CEM. Acquisition was routinely started with craniocaudal view and ended with mediolateral oblique view of the affected breast. Lesion conspicuity (low, moderate, high), internal enhancement pattern (homogeneous, heterogeneous, rim), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), percentage of signal difference (PSD) and relative enhancement from early to late view were analyzed. PSD and relative enhancements were used to determine patterns of descending, steady or ascending enhancements. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, Cohen's kappa statistics and Spearman correlation tests were used.
resultsThere were 29 benign and 107 malignant lesions. 64% of the malignant lesions exhibited high conspicuity compared to 14% of the benign lesions (
conclusionDiagnostic accuracy of quantitative parameters was higher than that of qualitative parameters. High CNR, rim enhancement, and descending pattern were features commonly seen in malignant lesions, while low CNR, homogeneous enhancement, and ascending pattern were commonly seen in benign lesions.
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.