ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2025
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Lesion Assessment: Accuracy and Surgical Impact.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to optimise breast cancer staging with contrast-enhanced mammography: current evidence and clinical implications.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Bifurcated Networks for Breast Density & Cancer Risk: A Technical Framework.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond Cancer Detection: An AI Framework for Multidimensional Risk Profiling on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate preoperative tumor sizing is critical for optimal surgical planning in breast cancer. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as a promising modality, yet its accuracy relative to conventional imaging and pathology requires further validation.
objectiveTo prospectively evaluate the dimensional accuracy and reproducibility of CEM compared to mammography and ultrasound, using surgical pathology as the reference standard.
methodsA total of 205 patients with 267 breast lesions underwent preoperative CEM, mammography, and ultrasound. Tumor sizes were measured independently by two radiologists. Accuracy was assessed via mean absolute error (MAE), Pearson and Spearman correlations, and inter-reader agreement evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Gwet's AC1. Sensitivity analyses included bootstrap confidence intervals and log-transformed data. The surgical impact of additional lesions detected by CEM was also analyzed.
resultsCEM showed superior accuracy with a mean absolute error of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.24-0.68) compared to mammography (4.06 mm) and ultrasound (3.52 mm) (
conclusionsCEM provides highly accurate and reproducible tumor size estimation superior to conventional imaging modalities, with potential clinical impact through detection of additional lesions. Its ability to detect additional lesions not seen on mammography or ultrasound has direct implications for surgical decision making, with the potential to reduce reoperations and improve oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, high correlation values and selective patient cohorts warrant cautious interpretation. Further multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings and define CEM's role in 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.