ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2026
PEM as an adjunct to MRI or CESM for characterizing non-mass enhancement: a retrospective two-arm diagnostic study.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of positron emission mammography (PEM) as an adjunct to breast MRI or contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for characterizing non-mass enhancement (NME). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective two-arm study included 108 women with NME. Patients were categorized into Arm 1 (MRI + PEM, n = 54) or Arm 2 (CESM + PEM, n = 54). Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed all imaging studies blinded to histopathology. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated using histopathology as the reference standard.
resultsIn Arm 1, PEM demonstrated 100% sensitivity (34/34) and higher specificity (100%, 20/20) compared with MRI (30.0%, 6/20; P < 0.001). In Arm 2, PEM showed 100% sensitivity (28/28) and higher specificity (92.3%, 24/26) compared with CESM (61.5%, 16/26; P < 0.01). Inter-observer agreement was higher for PEM (κ = 0.674) than for MRI (κ = 0.351) and CESM (κ = 0.210). In a combined analysis of 38 indeterminate cases, PEM correctly reclassified 29 of 30 benign lesions.
conclusionIn this cohort, PEM demonstrated high diagnostic performance and improved specificity when used as an adjunct to MRI or CESM. These findings suggest that PEM may serve as a valuable problem-solving tool in selected indeterminate cases. However, results should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective design and limited sample size.
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.