ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Role of contrast-enhanced mammogram as an adjunct to tomosynthesis in evaluation of circumscribed breast lesions.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of AI for improved management of breast cancer: Enhanced diagnosis and health disparity mitigation.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe evaluated the role of contrast-enhanced mammogram (CEM) in the characterization of circumscribed lesions detected in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and correlated with histopathology.
methodsA retrospective study was done on 205 circumscribed breast masses detected with DBT and for whom CEM was done before core biopsy/excision biopsy. Morphology of lesion enhancement was noted at a 2-min CEM image and depending on the enhancement pattern, they were classified as benign, malignant, and indeterminate. Indeterminate lesions were further characterized by contrast kinetics at 8 min and divided into benign and malignant lesions. The results were correlated with histopathology reports.
resultsAmong the 205 lesions, 158 were benign and 47 were malignant by histopathology. All 47 malignant cases were diagnosed as malignant (sensitivity-100%) and 150 out of 158 benign lesions were diagnosed as benign by CEM (specificity-95%). Eight benign lesions were reported as malignant (false positive) by CEM. Positive predictive value was 85.4% (47/55); negative predictive value (NPV) was 100% (150/150); accuracy was 96% (197/205).
conclusionsThe high sensitivity of CEM in our study suggests that CEM helps in the early diagnosis of benign-looking circumscribed breast malignancies. The high NPV of CEM helps to avoid unnecessary biopsies and interventions in benign lesions. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study describes the contrast enhancement pattern of benign and malignant circumscribed breast lesions and thereby helps in the diagnosis of malignancy at an early stage. CEM is a promising adjunct tool since it offers functional imaging as a supplement to anatomical imaging by DBT.
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.