ArticleRadiology2024
Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.
Article in Radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical significance of lesion conspicuity on contrast-enhanced mammography.European radiology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography for women with extremely dense breasts in a national breast cancer screening program: a micro-simulation study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- ROI-Based Quantitative Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Feasibility Study for Reproducible Enhancement Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in low- and middle-income countries: opportunities and challenges.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Interval Cancers after Negative Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast MRI in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2026Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Advances, Challenges, and Case-Based Insights.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Quantitative Changes in Breast Density and Mammographic Features Induced by Pregnancy and Lactation: A Longitudinal Study.Journal of breast imaging · 2025Article
- Breast MRI to Screen Women With Extremely Dense Breasts.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- Risk factors for interval breast cancer: insights from a decade of a mammography screening program.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Emerging nanoparticle-based x-ray imaging contrast agents for breast cancer screening.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in high-dense breasts: a narrative review.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Mammogram interpretation is challenging in female patients with extremely dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category D), who have a higher breast cancer risk. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has recently emerged as a potential alternative; however, data regarding CEM utility in this subpopulation are limited. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for breast cancer screening in female patients with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-institution study included consecutive CEM examinations in asymptomatic female patients with extremely dense breasts performed from December 2012 to March 2022. From CEM examinations, low-energy (LE) images were the equivalent of a two-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Recombined images highlighting areas of contrast enhancement were constructed using a postprocessing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of LE images and CEM images (ie, including both LE and recombined images) were calculated and compared using the McNemar test. Results This study included 1299 screening CEM examinations (609 female patients; mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]). Sixteen screen-detected cancers were diagnosed, and two interval cancers occured. Five cancers were depicted at LE imaging and an additional 11 cancers were depicted at CEM (incremental cancer detection rate, 8.7 cancers per 1000 examinations). CEM sensitivity was 88.9% (16 of 18; 95% CI: 65.3, 98.6), which was higher than the LE examination sensitivity of 27.8% (five of 18; 95% CI: 9.7, 53.5) (
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.