ArticleHeliyon2025
Screening of breast cancer in higher-risk Taiwanese women using contrast-enhanced mammography.
Article in Heliyon, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To assess the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in screening higher-risk Taiwanese women for breast cancer. Methods: We conducted a prospective study at a Taiwanese medical center from 2019 to 2021. The study compared imaging techniques for breast cancer screening in women with a personal history of precancer or cancer, or a family history (first-degree relatives). The study included breast ultrasound (US) and the CEM combo, which consists of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and CEM. Diagnostic accuracy was compared using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: The study included 308 women, average age 52.1, with 86 % having familial breast cancer history and 14 % personal breast cancer or pre-cancerous histories. Approximately 19.5 % had lesions rated BI-RADS 4 or 5. Biopsies were performed on 56 women based on lesions detected by the CEM combo. Additionally, 60 biopsies were due to abnormalities found via DM or DBT (n = 20) or US (n = 40). Breast cancer was confirmed in 8 women post-biopsy. The CEM combo showed a sensitivity of 87.5 %, significantly higher than DM (50 %), DBT (50 %), and US (25 %). The ROC curve area for CEM was 0.85, outperforming DM (0.65), DBT (0.63), and US (0.55), with all comparisons statistically significant (p < 0.05). Lesions detected solely by DM, DBT, or US did not yield any cancer cases. Conclusions: CEM effectively detects breast cancer in higher-risk Taiwanese women, but further research is needed to refine biopsy recommendations.
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.