ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026
Findings of suspicious calcifications on contrast-enhanced mammography and their pathological correlation.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeThis study aimed to determine the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in evaluating suspicious calcifications not associated with a mass.
methodsPatients with suspicious calcifications detected on CEM performed at our center between February 2021 and December 2023 were included in the study. Retrospectively, the morphology, distribution, and longest axis length of the calcifications were assessed on low-energy images, whereas contrast enhancement intensity, pattern, longest axis length, and enhancement curves were analyzed on recombined images. The pathological diagnosis, grade, Ki-67 index, and (if available) the longest lesion length in the surgical specimen were recorded. Using pathology as the gold standard, various CEM parameters were evaluated for their performance in assessing this group of calcifications. Primary and secondary analyses were performed based on combined low or no enhancement and no enhancement alone, respectively.
resultsOur study includes 132 lesions in 114 patients,18 of whom had bilateral calcifications. Of the 132 lesions included in the study, 78 were benign, and 54 were malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were determined as follows: 72.2%, 62.8%, 57.3%, and 76% in low-energy images; 79.6%, 80.8%, 74.1%, and 85.1% in the primary analysis of recombined images; and 98.2%, 47.4%, 56.4%, and 97.4% in the secondary analysis. Contrast enhancement intensity was identified as a significant parameter influencing malignancy risk. A strong statistical correlation was observed between lesion length measurements in both low-energy and recombined images compared with pathology (r = 0.733 and r = 0.879,
conclusionCEM demonstrates strong performance in the assessment of suspicious calcifications by combining the morphological and distributional features of digital mammography with enhancement characteristics similar to MRI. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings support that CEM exhibits effective performance in evaluating suspicious calcifications not associated with a mass and may have a potential role in routine clinical practice.
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.