ArticleEuropean radiology2025
A head-to-head comparison of breast lesion's conspicuity at contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early, delayed, or combined contrast-enhanced mammography for detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.European radiology · 2026Article
- ROI-Based Quantitative Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Feasibility Study for Reproducible Enhancement Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography on Personalized Surgical Decision-Making in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Multicentre Pilot Observational Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of the nipple-areola complex: data from a real-world setting.European radiology · 2026Article
- Clinical Applications and Decision-Making Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and MRI: A Recent Structured Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Deep Learning on Tumor Habitat Sub-regions vs. Whole-Tumor ROI: A Comparative Study of Fusion Strategies for Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype Prediction.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Pipeline evaluation of a state-of-the-art AI algorithm for detection of focal cortical dysplasia: insights into potential failure sources.Brain informatics · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast MRI in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2026Article
- Why clinical context and sustainability matters: the role of high-concentration contrast in CEM.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Improving the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography through lesion conspicuity and enhancement quantification.European radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Lesion Assessment: Accuracy and Surgical Impact.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLesion conspicuity, the relative enhancement of a lesion compared to surrounding tissue, is a new descriptor in the ACR BI-RADS 2022 CEM supplement. We compared lesion conspicuity in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in patients with suspicious breast lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsIRB-approved retrospective study; three blinded readers rated 462 indeterminate or suspicious breast lesions in 388 patients (54.2 ± 11 years; range 30-90) who underwent CEM and CE-MRI from 2018 to 2022. Each lesion's conspicuity was scored from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating excellent conspicuity. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis and area under the curve (AUC) were used for comparison, with sub-analyses for benign and malignant lesions.
resultsVGC analysis showed a significant AUC of 0.670 to 0.723 (p < 0.001) favouring CE-MRI. No lesion enhancement (score 1) was observed in 16.2% of CE-MRI and 44.7% of CEM. Excellent conspicuity was seen in 29.6% of CE-MRI and 11.9% of CEM. Sub-analysis showed higher conspicuity on CE-MRI for both malignant (AUC 0.665 to 0.732, p < 0.001) and benign lesions (AUC 0.734 to 0.798, p < 0.001). CE-MRI showed higher lesion conspicuity compared to CEM both for non-mass lesions (0.656) and for mass lesions 0.605.
conclusionCE-MRI shows significantly higher conspicuity for benign and malignant breast lesions compared to CEM, especially for benign lesions. The low conspicuity of benign lesions on CEM may help reduce false positives in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: Question Lesion conspicuity is a new descriptor for lesion enhancement according to the new CEM lexicon. Data correlating lesion conspicuity with malignancy likelihood are limited. Findings Lesion conspicuity is higher for contrast-enhanced-MRI than for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for all lesions but significantly better for benign lesions. Clinical relevance The low conspicuity of benign lesions on CEM may reduce false-positive results, making it a valuable tool in breast cancer screening.
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.