ArticleThe breast journal2026
Imaging Findings in Patients With Benign Adenomyoepithelioma: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in The breast journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Imaging Findings in Patients With Benign Adenomyoepithelioma: A Retrospective Analysis.The breast journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAdenomyoepithelioma (AME) is a rare breast tumor characterized by the biphasic proliferation of epithelial and myoepithelial cells. Due to its rarity, data on its imaging characteristics-particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings-remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the radiological features of AME and assess the diagnostic contribution of multiparametric imaging.
methodsThis retrospective study included 11 patients pathologically diagnosed with AME between 2013 and 2024 who underwent mammography, ultrasound (US), and MRI prior to diagnosis. Lesions were evaluated according to BI-RADS criteria: mammography (shape, margin, density, and calcifications); US (shape, margin, orientation, echogenicity, posterior features, vascularity, and elastography); and MRI (morphology, T2 signal intensity, ADC values, and enhancement kinetics).
resultsThe most common mammographic finding was an isodense oval or round mass with partially obscured margins (36.4%). No lesions demonstrated irregular shape or suspicious microcalcifications. On US, 90.9% of lesions were oval/round with circumscribed (45.5%) or indistinct (54.5%) margins. All lesions were hypoechoic and vascular; 71.4% exhibited soft elasticity on strain elastography. On MRI, 54.5% were hyperintense on T2 weighted images (T2WI) with circumscribed margins. ADC values ranged from 1.00 to 1.434 × 10
conclusionAlthough AME often demonstrates benign morphological features, it is frequently categorized as BI-RADS 4 due to vascular and kinetic characteristics that raise suspicion for malignancy. Our findings suggest that relatively low ADC values further contribute to this suspicious imaging profile. However, the absence of suspicious microcalcifications, an oval or round shape, and hyperintensity on T2WI may aid in the differential diagnosis. Given the malignant potential of these lesions, wide local excision with negative margins is essential, and radiological findings play a crucial role in guiding the need for pathological confirmation.
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.