ArticleCureus2026
Difference in Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Treatment-Naïve Versus Systemic Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as a valuable imaging modality for breast cancer detection and management. Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) reflects the level of normal glandular tissue enhancement and can vary based on physiological and pathological factors. Understanding the patterns of BPE in different patient populations, including post-treatment women, may provide insights into breast tissue response to therapy and aid in optimizing imaging interpretation. The purpose is to evaluate whether there is a difference in BPE on CEM in women who have undergone systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to the breast compared with treatment-naïve women. Methods Retrospective single-center cohort study of consecutive women who underwent CEM from December 2019 to December 2024 inclusive. The degree of BPE, as defined by the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Atlas for each examination, was independently reviewed by two specialized breast radiologists, and interobserver agreement was evaluated using the kappa statistic (kappa score = 1.0 for both treatment-naïve and post-NAC groups) and categorized into minimal, mild, moderate, or marked. Treatment status was recorded. Cases that did not have paired data were excluded. SPSS version 29.0.0.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used for analysis. Results Among 132 studies, 45 cases had paired data. The background BPE showed no statistical difference between treatment-naïve and post-NAC groups. Treatment-naïve patients predominantly showed minimal or mild BPE (46.7% and 31.1%, respectively), and lower percentages of moderate to marked BPE (20% and 2.2%, respectively). Post-NAC patients demonstrated no statistically significant difference in BPE categories, with 42.2% showing minimal and 55.6% mild BPE. Moderate or marked BPE was infrequent (2.2% and 0%, respectively). Conclusions No statistically significant difference in BPE between treatment-naïve and post-NAC groups (p = 0.084).
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.