ArticleCureus2025
Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Evaluation of Breast Lesions: An Initial Experience.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionContrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging technique for evaluating breast lesions. It is practiced in a few centers and is mostly used as a problem-solving tool in clinical practice and for therapeutic planning of breast cancer.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CEM in the detection and characterization of breast lesions.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 142 patients (mean age 50 +/- 25 years) who underwent technically successful CEM for the characterization of breast lesions between February 2023 and October 2023. Out of 142 patients, 96 patients (108 lesions) who had histopathology correlation were included for analysis. The patients with no histopathology were excluded. CEM was performed using a Siemens Healthineers Mammomat Revelation machine (Erlangen, Germany). A 1.5 ml/kg body weight of iodinated contrast media (Omnipaque 350, GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL) was intravenously injected at a rate of 3.5 mL/sec. Both low-energy (28-32 kVp) and high-energy (45-49 kVp) images of the cranio-caudal and mediolateral projections were acquired two to eight minutes after injection. Images were analyzed by two breast radiologists on a dedicated workstation (MedMammo (Medecom, Plougastel-Daoulas, France) and BARCO (Barco NV, Kortrijk (Courtrai), Belgium)).
resultsThe overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CEM for characterizing the breast lesions were 78.6%, 100%, 100%, and 71.7%, respectively. Out of 108 lesions, 70 were malignant and 38 were benign. Among 70 malignant lesions, 55 lesions showed enhancement with washout, and 14 showed only enhancement with no washout. One malignant lesion showed no enhancement. Out of 38 benign lesions, 29 showed enhancement with no washout, and nine did not show enhancement.
conclusionCEM showed good sensitivity and specificity in the detection and characterization of 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.