Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40111495›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumor size in architectural distortions: a comparison of DM, DBT, US, CEM, and MRI.

Javier Azcona Sáenz, Javier Molero Calafell, Marta Román Expósito, Elisenda Vall Foraster, Laura Comerma Blesa, Rodrigo Alcántara Souza, María Del Mar Vernet Tomás

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Canadian Breast Cancer Symposium 2025: Meeting Report.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Javier Azcona SáenzRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. javier.azcona.saenz@psmar.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3725-5499
Javier Molero CalafellDepartment of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
Marta Román ExpósitoDepartment of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
Elisenda Vall ForasterRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Laura Comerma BlesaPathology Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Rodrigo Alcántara Souza *Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
María Del Mar Vernet Tomás *Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to compare the accuracy of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer size in architectural distortions (ADs). Additionally, it assesses whether including thin spicules in mammography measurements affects accuracy. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe planned a retrospective analysis of invasive breast cancers presenting as ADs in our breast screening program between 2018 and 2022. Tumor size was measured in mm using DM, DBT, US, MRI, and CEM. Measurements were compared to the surgical specimen sizes. Two measurement approaches for DM and DBT were applied, considering and not considering thin spicules. T-student test was used to compare mean sizes across imaging techniques with the surgical specimen.

resultsThe study encompassed 59 female patients with 63 ADs. Mean age was 60.1 years (Standard Deviation (SD): 6.3). The cancers included four histological subtypes, ductal (69.8%), lobular (23.8%), tubular (4.8%), and micropapillary (1.6%). All imaging techniques, except for US (mean: 12.4 mm, SD: 5.7), overestimated tumor size compared to histology (mean: 16.40 mm, SD: 9). CEM, MRI, and DBT without thin spicules closely matched histological size. Including thin spicules in DM and DBT led to overestimation. Concordance was highest with CEM (75%) and MRI (67.6%). No significant differences were found between ductal and lobular carcinoma.

conclusionFor preoperative tumor size estimation of breast cancer in ADs, DBT excluding thin spicules, CEM, and MRI seemed most accurate. Including thin spicules in mammography leads to overestimation. KEY POINTS: Question Identifying the most accurate imaging technique for preoperative tumor staging of architectural distortions (ADs) is crucial now that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is widely implemented. Findings Measuring thin wispy spicules in ADs on digital (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) should be avoided, as they consistently overestimate pathological tumor stage. Clinical relevance Precise tumor size estimation in ADs is critical for proper staging and treatment planning. This study favors the use of DBT excluding thin spicules, CEM, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for optimal accuracy.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyUltrasonography, MammaryAdultAgedBreastContrast MediaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPreoperative CareRetrospective StudiesTumor BurdenContrast MediaBreast neoplasmsMagnetic resonance imagingMammographyNeoplasm stagingUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID40111495
PMCPMC12350446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.