Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38812642›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024

Dynamic contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer and detection of tumor size.

Muhammed Tekinhatun, Nuran Sabir, Ergun Erdem, Sevda Yilmaz, Furkan Ufuk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparative Evaluation of Superb Microvascular Imaging and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Masses.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Muhammed TekinhatunDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3240-6991
Nuran SabirDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3412-7355
Ergun ErdemDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7697-9305
Sevda YilmazDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1309-0805
Furkan UfukDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-5387

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic breast MRI techniques for diagnosing breast lesions, assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEM's using histopathological findings, and compare lesion size measurements obtained from both methods with pathological size. Materials and methods: This prospective study included 120 lesions, of which 70 were malignant, in 104 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within a week. Two radiologists independently evaluated the MR and CEM images in separate sessions, using the BI-RADS classification system. Additionally, the maximum sizes of lesion were measured. Diagnostic accuracy parameters and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed for the two modalities. The correlation between the maximum diameter of breast lesions observed in MRI, CEM, and pathology was analyzed. Results: The overall diagnostic values for MRI were as follows: sensitivity 97.1%, specificity 60%, positive predictive value (PPV) 77.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) 93.8%, and accuracy 81.7%. Correspondingly, for CEM, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 97.14%, 81.67%, 60%, 77.27%, and 93.75%, respectively. The ROC analysis of CEM revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.907 for observer 1 and 0.857 for observer 2, whereas MRI exhibited an AUC of 0.910 for observer 1 and 0.914 for observer 2. Notably, CEM showed the highest correlation with pathological lesion size (r = 0.660 for observer 1 and r = 0.693 for observer 2, p < 0.001 for both). Conclusion: CEM can be used with high sensitivity and similar diagnostic performance comparable to MRI for diagnosing breast cancer. CEM proves to be a successful diagnostic method for precisely determining tumor size.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyAdultBreastContrast MediaFemaleHumansIndependent Medical EvaluationMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiologistsContrast MediaBreast cancercontrast-enhanced spectral mammographydynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID38812642
PMCPMC11031179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.