ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Early, delayed, or combined contrast-enhanced mammography for detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.
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.
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for detecting residual disease (RD) and assessing residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer, comparing early-only, delayed-only, and combined acquisition protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center diagnostic performance study included consecutive women with biopsy-proven breast cancer who underwent pre- and post-NAC CEM with both early and delayed acquisitions and subsequent surgery (2016-2024). Patients without complete CEM protocols or surgical pathology were excluded. CEM images were independently analyzed for each protocol by two experienced breast radiologists in consensus. Radiological response was categorized per RECIST and dichotomized as complete response versus RD. Pathological tumor staging (ypT) at surgery was the gold standard; pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as ypT0/ypTis. Diagnostic performance in predicting RD was calculated for each protocol with sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) as primary endpoints (χ² test). Bland-Altman analysis compared imaging-measured and pathological tumor sizes.
resultsOf 202 women included (mean age, 54.7 ± 12.7), 83 (41.1%) achieved pCR. Sensitivity for detecting RD was higher for delayed (85.7%, 95% CI 78.1-91.5%) and combined protocols (86.6%, 79.1-92.1%) compared to early (68.1%, 58.9-76.3%; p < 0.0001). NPV improved from 58.2% (95% CI 48.3-67.6%) to 71.2% (62.3-79.0%; p = 0.04) with delayed acquisitions. Bland-Altman analysis showed slightly better agreement between early images and pathology (mean difference 5.7 mm) than for delayed acquisitions (11.8 mm).
conclusionsDelayed CEM images significantly improved sensitivity and NPV in predicting RD, supporting the inclusion of delayed acquisitions in the neoadjuvant setting. KEY POINTS: Question Can contrast-enhanced mammography protocols be optimized after neoadjuvant chemotherapy to improve the detection of pathological residual disease and residual tumor size assessment? Findings Delayed contrast-enhanced mammography acquisitions significantly improved sensitivity and negative predictive value for residual disease detection, whereas early acquisitions provided slightly better agreement for residual tumor size. Clinical relevance Including delayed images in post-neoadjuvant contrast-enhanced mammography improves detection of residual invasive disease, supporting surgical planning, while early images remain useful for tumor size estimation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42141291What 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.