ArticleCureus2025
Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Reclassification: Correlation With Histopathology and Clinical Outcomes.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate how contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) modifies the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification initially assigned on digital mammography (DM), and to assess the accuracy of CEM-driven upgrades, downgrades, and confirmations using histopathology as reference.
methodsThis was a retrospective observational study that included symptomatic patients who underwent both DM and subsequent CEM within a short interval. The initial BI-RADS grading was assigned based on DM findings, while CEM findings were categorized as either correct or incorrect upgrades, downgrades, or confirmations, based on final histopathology or follow-up results. The study included 60 patients across all grades of BI-RADS.
resultsAmong patients initially assigned BI-RADS 0-5 on DM, CEM correctly upgraded 12 lesions and correctly downgraded six lesions. CEM also incorrectly upgraded seven lesions and incorrectly downgraded two lesions. The BI-RADS category was correctly confirmed in the remaining 33 patients. The lesions upgraded in several BI-RADS 0 and 4 cases were occult or subtle enhancement revealed as invasive carcinoma on histopathology. False-positive upgrades were seen in cases of fibroadenoma and sclerosing adenosis, while false-negative downgrades occurred in two BI-RADS 5 lesions that showed no enhancement but proved malignant on histopathology. CEM also aided in downgrading post-surgical and inflammatory changes accurately, improving confidence in excluding recurrence or malignancy.
conclusion
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.