ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Comparison of contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT, MRI, and mammography for breast cancer characterization.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Applications and Decision-Making Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and MRI: A Recent Structured Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Preoperative prediction of Ki-67 expression and prognosis in breast cancer based on contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT: a two-centre study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Beyond the lung: recognizing incidental breast lesions on chest computed tomography.Translational cancer research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the consistency of contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE-CBBCT), MRI and mammography regarding characterization of breast cancer.
methodsIn this retrospective study, patients with breast cancer who underwent preoperative CE-CBBCT, MRI, and mammography between January 2017 and July 2022 were enrolled. Three experienced radiologists independently interpreted the characteristics of breast lesions on each imaging mode referring to BI-RADS, with a 4-week wash-out period. One of the three radiologists reviewed the CE-CBBCT images 4 weeks after the initial evaluation. Cross-modality consistency was calculated by Cohen's Kappa based on majority report. Inter-and intra-reader agreement were assessed using Fleiss and Cohen's Kappa, respectively. The association between imaging factors and consistency levels was analyzed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsA total of 214 malignant lesions identified in 207 patients were enrolled. CE-CBBCT showed almost perfect agreement with MRI on lesion type identification (Kappa = 0.865, 95% CI: 0.802-0.928), but fair agreement with mammography (Kappa = 0.287, 95% CI: 0.205-0.369). CE-CBBCT showed substantial agreement on characterization with MRI for both mass (Kappa = 0.752-0.824) and non-mass enhancement (NME) (Kappa = 0.702-0.729), and non-contrast-enhanced CBBCT (NCE-CBBCT) showed substantial agreement with mammography for calcification (Kappa = 0.717-0.777). Inter- (Kappa = 0.611-0.738) and intra-reader (Kappa = 0.757-0.887) agreement were substantial on CE-CBBCT interpretation. There was no statistically significant difference in imaging factors between different consistency levels (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsCE-CBBCT showed high consistency on mass and NME characterization with MRI, and on calcification with mammography, indicating that CE-CBBCT could combine morphology, hemodynamic and calcification features, and the corresponding descriptors have the feasibility to describe CE-CBBCT characteristics of breast cancer. KEY POINTS: Question Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE-CBBCT) is widely used in the diagnosis and assessment of breast cancer, but there is no standardized lexicon for image interpretation. Findings CE-CBBCT showed high consistency and comparable reproducibility with MRI and mammography for characterizing breast cancer lesions. Clinical relevance The findings prove that CE-CBBCT could combine morphology, hemodynamic, and calcification features and provide support for the feasibility of applying the BI-RADS descriptors of MRI and mammography to interpret contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT images in clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40240554What 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.