SynthesisEuropean radiology2026
Contribution of mammographic imaging after initial ultrasound in women with focal breast complaints-systematic review.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBreast cancer is the most common cancer among women, making accurate diagnostic imaging essential for evaluating focal breast complaints. Standard breast imaging includes mammography (MG), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and targeted ultrasound (US). Little information is known about the added value of MG/DBT compared to targeted US alone in women with focal breast complaints. This review provides a systematic overview of the (relative) sensitivity of MG/DBT, next to the use of targeted US in women with focal breast complaints, while emphasizing the variations of the reported guidelines. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive PubMed search was conducted to identify articles published between January 2002 and February 2024 that assessed the diagnostic performance of MG/DBT and targeted US in women presenting with focal breast complaints.
resultsOf the 985 identified studies, 10 met the inclusion criteria after full-text evaluation. Palpable lumps and focal pain are the more frequent symptoms. Most studies show a high sensitivity (range 84.6-100%, the largest study reported 98.3%) of targeted US alone in relatively young women (30-39 years). Mammograms show added value, particularly when it comes to determining the extent of breast cancer and when confirming a benign abnormality.
conclusionsTargeted US is a reliable initial imaging modality, particularly in younger women (≤ 40). When the US suggests a benign finding in low/average-risk women, the added value of MG is minimal. Routine use should be weighed against the risk of overdiagnosis, unnecessary biopsies, and radiation exposure. KEY POINTS: Question The best imaging strategy for women aged 30-40 with focal breast complaints is uncertain, and whether US alone suffices remains unresolved. Findings Initial targeted US shows high accuracy in this diagnostic setting, with MG/DBT adding value mainly in determination of tumor extent and from a screening perspective. Clinical relevance Using US as the primary imaging for women < 40 with focal breast symptoms may reduce MG, radiation, and discomfort, while maintaining cancer detection; however, any discordance between clinical and imaging findings should always prompt further evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417121What 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.