Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39698643›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

The value of contrast-enhanced energy-spectrum mammography combined with clinical indicators in detecting breast cancer in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 lesions.

Yijing Zhou, Yufeng Li, Yue Liu, Mingge Zhou, Bao Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Yijing ZhouDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Yufeng LiDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Yue LiuDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Mingge ZhouDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Bao LiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8170-926X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Under the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), category 4 lesions have a high probability of malignancy. This study sought to investigate the efficacy of a model that combined the BI-RADS score with the enhancement score and clinical indicators in the diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 lesions based on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in breast cancer patients. Methods: The data of female patients with BI-RADS scores of 4 who underwent CESM at the Department of Medical Imaging of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from January 2018 to July 2023 were retrospectively collected. In total, 170 patients were enrolled in the study. Based on their surgery or puncture pathology results, the patients were divided into malignant and benign groups. The clinical data, imaging characteristics, and enhancement degree of the patients in the two groups were compared. Model 3, which combined the BI-RADS score, enhancement score, and clinical indicators, was constructed using logistic regression. The predictive performance of Model 3 was evaluated and compared with Model 1 (BI-RADS score) and Model 2 (BI-RADS score + enhancement score). Results: Of the 170 patients, 69 had benign lesions and 101 had malignant lesions. There were significant differences between the malignant and benign groups in terms of age, menopause, a family history breast cancer, BI-RADS score, and enhancement score (all P<0.05). The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the receiver operator characteristic curves of Models 1, 2, and 3 were 0.830, 0.858, and 0.900, respectively. The best cut-off value for Model 3 was 0.766, with a sensitivity of 74.3% and a specificity of 94.2%. Based on the AUCs and decision curves, Model 3 performed better than Models 1 and 2. The calibration curve (intercept: 0.034; slope: 0.807) was plotted using bootstrap re-sampling (500 times), and showed good agreement between the predicted probability and the actual prevalence. Conclusions: In the suspected breast cancer patients with a BI-RADS score of 4, the combination of the enhancement score and clinical indicators based on the BI-RADS score improved the efficiency of CESM in diagnosing breast cancer.

Indexed as

breast cancerContrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)differential diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID39698643
PMCPMC11651970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.