Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38811515›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2024

Contrast-enhanced mammography in the management of breast architectural distortions and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies.

Chiara Bellini, Francesca Pugliese, Giulia Bicchierai, Francesco Amato, Diego De Benedetto, Federica Di Naro, Cecilia Boeri, Ermanno Vanzi, Giuliano Migliaro, Ludovica Incardona and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

14 authors.

Chiara BelliniDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 1chiarabellini@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4243-8719
Francesca PuglieseDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Giulia BicchieraiDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Francesco AmatoDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, "Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio", Agrigento, Italy.
Diego De BenedettoDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Federica Di NaroDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Cecilia BoeriDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Ermanno VanziDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Giuliano MigliaroDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Ludovica IncardonaDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Cinzia TommasiBreast Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Lorenzo OrzalesiBreast Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Vittorio MieleDepartment of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Jacopo NoriDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the management of BI-RADS3 breast architectural distortions (AD) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 328 women with 332 ADs detected on DBT between 2017 and 2021 and selected those classified as BI-RADS3 receiving CEM as problem-solving. In CEM recombined images, we evaluated AD's contrast enhancement (CE) according to its presence/absence, type, and size. AD with enhancement underwent imaging-guided biopsy while AD without enhancement follow-up or biopsy if detected in high/intermediate-risk women.

resultsAD with enhancement were 174 (52.4%): 72 (41.4%) were malignant lesions, 102 (59.6%) false positive results: 28 (16%) B3 lesions, and 74 (42.5%) benign lesions. AD without enhancement were 158 (47.6%): 26 (16.5%) were subjected to biopsy (1 malignant and 25 benign) while the other 132 cases were sent to imaging follow-up, still negative after two years. CEM's sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracy were 98.63%, 60.62%, 41.38%, 99.37%, and 68.98%. The AUC determined by ROC was 0.796 (95% CI, 0.749-0.844).

conclusionCEM has high sensitivity and NPV in evaluating BI-RADS3 AD and can be a complementary tool in assessing AD, avoiding unnecessary biopsies without compromising cancer detection.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsContrast MediaMammographyAdultAgedBreastFemaleHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUnnecessary ProceduresContrast MediaBreast cancerCEMDistortions

Identifiers

PMID38811515

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.