Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38751680›Full record

ArticleTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer2024

Can Hounsfield units on chest CT characterize breast nodules as cystic or solid?

Kathleen Capaccione, Elise Desperito, Arnold Caleb Asiimwe, Mary Salvatore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Kathleen CapaccioneDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Elise DesperitoDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Arnold Caleb AsiimweDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Mary SalvatoreDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report the results of our retrospective analysis of the ability of standard chest computed tomography (CT) scans to correctly differentiate cystic from solid lesions. MModal Catalyst identified 27 women who had an ultrasound of the breast that was recommended because of a chest CT finding between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. All images were reviewed by a radiologist fellowship trained in both breast imaging and cardiothoracic radiology (MS). Ultrasound characterization of lesion density as cystic or solid was considered the gold standard for this study. Analysis of CT scans was performed to identify lesions of interest corresponding to ultrasound abnormality; average, minimum, and maximum Hounsfield units (HUs) were measured. If masses had any solid component, they were considered solid. Twenty masses were solid, and 7 masses were cystic on ultrasound. Thirteen studies were performed without contrast and 14 were performed with contrast. On non-contrast studies, the average HU for cystic lesions was 19 compared to 38 HU for solid (P=0.007). On contrast studies, the average HU for cystic lesions was 16 compared to 53 HU for solid (P=0.002). Cystic lesions did not change with contrast significantly. Solid lesions enhanced with contrast; average HU 38 without contrast to 53 HU with contrast. Chest CT accurately diagnosed breast masses as cystic or solid with or without contrast.

Indexed as

Breast noduleschest computed tomography (chest CT)mammography

Identifiers

PMID38751680
PMCPMC11093092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.