Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39080066›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: associated factors, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome.

Noam Nissan, Jill Gluskin, Rosa Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Janice S Sung, Maxine S Jochelson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. 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. Review
  2. Review
  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

5 authors.

Noam NissanDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Jill GluskinDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Rosa Elena Ochoa-AlbizteguiDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Janice S SungDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Maxine S JochelsonDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. jochelsm@mskcc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4012-2470

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarize our institutional experience with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) exams reporting asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). MATERIALS AND

methodsConsecutive CEMs performed between December 2012 and July 2023 were retrospectively reviewed to identify exams reporting asymmetric BPE. Associated factors, the level of reporting certainty, BI-RADS score, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome were summarized. BPE grades and BI-RADS were compared between initial CEM vs. immediate MRI and 6-month follow-up CEM, when indicated, using the Sign test.

resultsOverall, 175/12,856 (1.4%) CEMs (140 female patients, mean age, 46 ± 8.0 years) reported asymmetric BPE. Reporting certainty was mostly high (n = 86), then moderate (n = 59) and low (n = 30). Associated factors included contralateral irradiation (n = 94), recent ipsilateral breast treatment (n = 14), and unilateral breastfeeding (n = 4). BI-RADS scores were 0 (n = 21), 1/2 (n = 75), 3 (n = 67), 4 (n = 3), and 6 (n = 1), or given for a finding other than asymmetric BPE (n = 8). Initial diagnostic-workup often included targeted-US (n = 107). Immediate MRI (n = 65) and/or 6-month CEM follow-up (n = 69) downgraded most cases, with a significant decrease in BPE grade compared to the initial CEM (p < 0.01 for both). On follow-up, two underlying cancers were diagnosed in the area of questionable asymmetric BPE.

conclusionApparent asymmetric BPE is most often a benign finding with an identifiable etiology. However, rarely, it may mask an underlying malignancy presenting as non-mass enhancement, thus requiring additional scrutiny. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The variability in the diagnostic-workup of apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement stresses the clinical challenge of this radiological finding. Further studies are required to verify these initial observations and to establish standardized management guidelines. KEY POINTS: Apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement usually represents a benign clinical correlate, though rarely it may represent malignancy. Evaluation of asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement varied considerably in the metrics that were examined. Targeted US and MRI can be useful in evaluating unexplained asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsContrast MediaImage EnhancementMammographyAdultAgedBreastFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaBreast neoplasmsMagnetic resonance imagingMammography

Identifiers

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.