ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Comparison of two visual localization biopsy methods for suspicious breast lesions under mammography: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Compared with traditional mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) increases the detection of breast lesions by reducing the overlapping masking effect of glands through multi-angle exposures of a rotating X-ray tube. Breast biopsy under the guidance of mammography can effectively diagnose breast lesions. The main methods of mammography-guided biopsy include wire positioning, core needle biopsy (CNB), and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB). Currently, it is mainly guided by stereotactic or DBT-guided localization. In this study, we conducted a retrospective study to compare the clinical efficiency and performance of DBT-guided and prone stereotactic (PS)-guided breast lesion biopsies. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 406 patients who underwent mammogram-guided biopsies from three hospitals between August 2020 and August 2024. The cohort comprised 234 cases of DBT-guided biopsies and 172 cases of PS-guided biopsies. The DBT-guided biopsy methods included wire positioning, CNB, and VABB. The PS-guided biopsy methods included wire positioning and CNB. Statistical analyses utilized the Chi-squared or Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the effectiveness of biopsy methods acquired under DBT guidance and PS guidance. Results: In wire positioning and CNB, both the DBT-guided group and PS-guided group had higher biopsy success rates (100% Conclusions: DBT-guided biopsies outperformed PS-guided biopsies in clinical efficiency, achieving quicker procedures and requiring fewer exposures while enabling the biopsy of a broader range of non-calcified breast lesions.
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.