ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2025
Breast Suspicious Microcalcifications on Contrast-Enhanced Mammograms: Practice and Reflection.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the use of contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) in suspicious microcalcifications and to discuss strategies to cope with its diagnostic limitations. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious calcifications who underwent CEM at our institution. We collected and analyzed morphological findings, enhancement patterns and pathological findings of suspicious microcalcifications on CEM. A small proportion of these cases underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). The enhancement patterns of CEM in this study were classified into three categories: enhancement, no enhancement, and indeterminate. CEM imaging was independently analyzed by two breast imaging specialists. Results: A total of 44 patients with 46 lesions were collected from January 2022 to July 2024. Overall, 20 cases (43.5%) microcalcifications showed enhancement on CEM; 23 (50.0%) showed no enhancement; and 3 (6.5%) were indeterminate. Of the 20 enhancement cases, mass enhancement was seen in 9 (45%), and non-mass enhancement (NME) in 11 (55%). DCE-MRI was performed in 13 cases. One case of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) showed enhancement on MRI but was indeterminate on CEM due to the masking effect of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and one case of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lacked enhancement on CEM but had significant enhancement on MRI. Conclusion: CEM provides additional information on the enhancement associated with breast suspicious microcalcifications. It is not perfect for diagnosis and strategies are needed to cope with its limitations.
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.