ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Clinical significance of lesion conspicuity on contrast-enhanced mammography.
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if lesion conspicuity on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is independently associated with malignancy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective, single-institution study identified consecutive abnormal screening and diagnostic CEMs between January 2019 and December 2021. The conspicuity of enhancing lesions on CEM recombined images was graded (low, moderate, or high) by one or both breast radiologists assigned as readers for the study, blinded to two-year imaging follow-up or biopsy pathology results. The positive predictive value (PPV) for malignancy was determined for each level of conspicuity.
resultsAcross 476 CEM examinations in 455 women (median age, 49 years; IQR: 44-57), there were 563 enhancing lesions (55 malignant, 508 benign). Of the 563 enhancing lesions, 52% (292/563) were low conspicuity, 38% (213/563) moderate, and 10.3% (58/563) high. The PPV to predict cancer was 9% (95% CI: 6-12%), 11% (95% CI: 7-16%), and 10% (95% CI: 4-21%) for low, moderate, and high conspicuity (low vs high, p = 0.68; low vs moderate, p = 0.34; moderate vs high, p = 0.83). Of the 55 cancers, most high-conspicuity cancers presented on both recombined images and low-energy images (5/6; 83%), while most low- (21/25; 84%) and moderate-conspicuity cancers (17/24; 71%) presented on recombined images only (p = 0.006). Inter-reader agreement was almost perfect for 100 lesions graded by both breast radiologists (κ = 0.94).
conclusionLesion conspicuity is not independently associated with malignancy. Most enhancing lesions, including most cancers, show low or moderate conspicuity on CEM. KEY POINTS: Question Is lesion conspicuity on CEM, determined on the recombined images, an independent predictor of malignancy? Findings The PPV for low, moderate, and high conspicuity to predict malignancy was 8.6%, 11.3%, and 10.3%, respectively (non-significant differences between low, moderate, and high conspicuity). Clinical relevance Lesion conspicuity is not an independent predictor of malignancy. Enhancing lesions seen on recombined images should not be considered benign based on low conspicuity alone, as most low-conspicuity cancers presented with enhancement only and lacked a correlate finding on low-energy images.
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.