ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast MRI: a multidimensional cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. 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.
- Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography on Personalized Surgical Decision-Making in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Multicentre Pilot Observational Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in low- and middle-income countries: opportunities and challenges.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast MRI in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the diagnostic concordance between contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer (BCa) and to evaluate the clinical, operational, and economic implications of substituting CEM for MRI in concordant cases.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 280 patients who underwent both CEM and DCE-MRI within 15 days. Two experienced breast radiologists independently evaluated imaging concordance based on lesion detection, characterization, and clinical interpretability. A cost minimization analysis was performed assuming equivalent diagnostic performance in concordant cases. Direct procedural costs were derived from regional reimbursement rates (€215.20 for DCE-MRI; €74.00 for CEM). Operational efficiency was assessed using institutional time-motion data, and average radiologist reporting times were included to model overall organizational impact.
resultsComplete diagnostic concordance was observed in 190 cases (67.9%), while 78 (27.9%) showed that clinically relevant discordance and 12 (4.3%) were indeterminate. Substituting CEM for MRI in the concordant group yielded a projected total cost reduction of €26,828, representing a 44.9% decrease and €141.20 saved per patient. Procedural modeling indicated a net scanner time saving of 3,800 min (63 h and 20 min). CEM reporting required 15 min less per case on average, totaling 2,850 min (47 h and 30 min) in cumulative reading time saved.
conclusionCEM demonstrated substantial diagnostic concordance with MRI in a majority of cases, with significant benefits in cost reduction and workflow efficiency. Targeted CEM integration may support more sustainable, value-based breast imaging without compromising diagnostic quality.
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.