Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42165975›Full record

SynthesisLa Radiologia medica2026

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography in evaluating breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Francesca Galati, Fatemeh Shakki Katouli, Roberto Maroncelli, Gloria Barcaroli, Narges Azizi, Alessandra Spagnoli, Elena Fabrizi, Federica Pediconi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in La Radiologia medica, 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Francesca GalatiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza - University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Fatemeh Shakki KatouliDepartment of Radiology, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Roberto MaroncelliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza - University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy. roberto.maroncelli@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6626-2478
Gloria BarcaroliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza - University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Narges AziziAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alessandra SpagnoliDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza-University of Rome, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Elena FabriziDepartment of Political Sciences, University of Teramo, 64100, Teramo, Italy.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza - University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNeoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in breast cancer enables tumor downstaging and response evaluation. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the gold standard, its limitations have prompted growing interest in alternatives such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

methodsThis review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We evaluated CEM accuracy in predicting pathological complete response after NAT, using surgery as reference standard. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias with QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate random-effects model estimated diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were generated, and heterogeneity was quantified using Higgins' I

resultsFifteen studies, including 793 patients, met inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed a DOR of 9.30 (95% CI 4.15-20.83) with substantial heterogeneity (I

conclusionsCEM demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy for assessing NAT response, performing comparably to MRI. Trial registration This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD420251003406.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsContrast MediaMammographyNeoadjuvant TherapyFemaleHumansPathologic Complete ResponseSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaBreast cancerContrast-enhanced mammographyDiagnostic accuracyNeoadjuvant therapyPathological complete response

Identifiers

PMID42165975
PMCPMC13369599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.