ArticleCureus2024
Diagnostic Accuracy and Incremental Value of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared With Full Field Digital Mammography in a Tertiary Cancer Care Center.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy and incremental value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis was performed with 150 consecutive patients who underwent CEM at our institute between November 2020 and February 2021, fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The first round of analysis included a review of FFDM with an interpretation of findings as per the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) lexicon and the assignment of the BIRADS category to the detected abnormalities. After this documentation, a second round of analysis included a review of recombined subtracted images of CEM. The diagnostic accuracy of FFDM and CEM was calculated with histopathology as the gold standard.
resultsAmong the 150 cases assessed, 202 lesions were detected with histopathological correlation, of which 42 were benign and 160 were malignant. The sensitivity of FFDM was 90.6% compared to 98.12% for CEM. The specificity of FFDM was 66.7% compared to 76.19% for CEM. The negative predictive value (NPV) of FFDM was low, at 65.12%; CEM showed a better NPV, at 91.43%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was almost the same, at 94.01% for CEM and 91.19% for FFDM. The area under the curve (AUC) was superior for CEM compared to that of FFDM, with a value of 0.87. FFDM had a low sensitivity, especially in dense breast parenchyma, at 88.79% and a specificity of 70%, whereas CEM showed a higher sensitivity, specificity, and NPV, measuring 99.14%, 76.67%, and 95.83%, respectively.
conclusionSuperior sensitivity and high NPV for CEM make it a preferable modality compared with FFDM, especially in dense breast parenchyma, where CEM overcomes the limitations of FFDM. We conclude that CEM is superior to FFDM in evaluating the extent of disease, additional satellite lesion detection, and ruling out ambiguous findings.
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.