Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085641›Full record

GuidelineEuropean radiology2025

ESR Essentials: diagnostic work-up in patients with symptomatic breast disease-practice recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

Alexandra Athanasiou, Linda Appelman, Ruud M Pijnappel, Fiona J Gilbert, Federica Pediconi, Ritse Mann

Abstract readPractice GuidelineReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Alexandra AthanasiouBreast Imaging Department, MITERA Hospital, Athens, Greece. aathanasiou@mitera.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4530-0210
Linda AppelmanBreast Imaging Department, Alexander Monro Hospital, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Ruud M PijnappelDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Fiona J GilbertDepartment of Radiology, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
Ritse MannDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast complaints are frequent reasons for consultations in primary care or breast clinics. Breast pain, breast lumps, and nipple discharge are the most common complaints. Less common symptoms such as skin changes and axillary abnormalities also require specific diagnostic approaches. Imaging the symptomatic breast should be performed by appropriately trained breast radiologists following the best practice guidelines and quality standards. Full-field digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and breast ultrasound (US) are the main modalities used in this primary setting. The choice depends on the patient's age and symptoms. Women younger than 30-years-old are first imaged by US, whereas women over 40-years-old usually require both FFDM or DBT and US. For women between 30-years-old and 40-years-old, the US is the modality of choice, whereas FFDM or DBT might also be performed if needed. Pregnant or lactating women with palpable lesions or nipple discharge are imaged with US as the first method; FFDM or DBT can also be performed depending on the degree of suspicion as the dose to the fetus is minimal, and shielding may even further reduce the dose. More advanced techniques such as breast magnetic resonance imaging or contrast-enhanced mammography are not indicated in this first diagnostic setting and are reserved for cases of established malignancy (local staging) or rare cases of equivocal findings not otherwise resolved or inflammatory breast cancer. Last, but not least, male breast symptoms should also be addressed with US and/or FFDM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: It is equally important to correctly diagnose an underlying malignancy and to avoid false positives that would lead to unnecessary biopsies, increased costs, and anxiety for the patient. Proper use of imaging modalities ensures optimal diagnostic approach and minimizes false negatives. KEY POINTS: Ultrasound, full-field digital mammography, or digital breast tomosynthesis are the main imaging modalities in the diagnostic setting, while MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved to selected cases. Initial imaging modality includes ultrasound combined with mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis depending on women's age and the presence (or not) of inconclusive findings. A negative imaging evaluation should not deter biopsy when a highly suspicious finding is found on physical examination.

Indexed as

Breast DiseasesBreast NeoplasmsMammographyUltrasonography, MammaryAdultEuropeFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingSocieties, MedicalBreast neoplasmsMammographyNipple dischargeUltrasonography

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.