Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41720936›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Implant-displacement views alone for breast cancer screening in women with implants: a multicenter retrospective study.

Hye Joung Eom, Hak Hee Kim, Sung Hun Kim, Hye Yun Gwon, Sanghee Kim, Hee Jeong Kim, Woo Jung Choi, Eun Young Chae, Hee Jung Shin, Joo Hee Cha

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hye Joung EomDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Hak Hee KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. hhkim@amc.seoul.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9672-844X
Sung Hun KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Hye Yun GwonDepartment of Radiology, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang-si, South Korea.
Sanghee KimDepartment of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hee Jeong KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Woo Jung ChoiDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Eun Young ChaeDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Hee Jung ShinDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Joo Hee ChaDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the necessity of breast implant-inclusion (BII) views in breast cancer screening for women with breast implants. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent full-field digital mammography, including four BII and four implant-displacement (BID) views, at three institutions in South Korea between January 2009 and December 2020. The true positive rate and radiologic findings were assessed and compared between BII and BID views. Factors associated with the change in suspicion level of malignancy and radiation dose were analyzed.

resultsOf the total 1470 patients (45.6 ± 8.4 years) evaluated, 215 were diagnosed with breast cancer (15%), and the cancer was not demonstrable in 37 cases in both BII and BID views. The true positive rates of the BII and BID views were 54% (116/215) and 83% (178/215), respectively (p < 0.01). The suspicion level of malignancy increased in 72% (129/178) and remained unchanged in 28% (49/178) in BID view compared to BII view. The implant location and tumor size differed between the increased suspicion and unchanged groups (p = 0.01 and < 0.01, respectively). The radiation dose per breast was 1.2 ± 0.5 mGy and 1.1 ± 0.4 mGy in BII and BID views (p < 0.01), respectively.

conclusionBID view alone may be sufficient for breast cancer screening in women with breast implants while minimizing radiation exposure, particularly in those with subpectoral implants. KEY POINTS: Question Does the implant-inclusion view provide additional diagnostic value over the implant-displacement view in breast cancer screening for women with breast implants? Findings Implant-displacement view demonstrated a higher true positive rate and lower radiation dose than implant-inclusion view, with no cancers detected exclusively by implant-inclusion view. Clinical relevance Screening with implant-displacement view alone in women with breast implants is sufficient for cancer detection while reducing radiation exposure-particularly in those with subpectoral implants, supporting a protocol that benefits patient safety and clinical efficiency.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRadiation DosageRepublic of KoreaRetrospective StudiesBreast cancer, Breast implantsMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID41720936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.