ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative assessment of primary operable breast cancer: Results from a prospective, two-centre study.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary operable breast cancer and in the detection of multifocal or multicentric carcinoma (MFMCC). Secondary aims were to determine the added value of recombined images (CEM-RI) relative to low-energy images (CEM-LEI) in detecting MFMCC. Materials and Methods: In this prospective multicenter study, 184 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were included. All patients underwent CEM, and findings from CEM-LEI and CEM-RI were analysed separately for the detection of MFMCC, using histopathology as the reference standard. The influence of CEM-RI findings on surgical decision-making was evaluated. All patients completed a 12-month clinical and imaging follow-up to assess residual disease and recurrence. Results: Histopathology confirmed MFMCC in 30/184 patients (16.30%). Sensitivity for MFMCC detection was significantly higher for CEM-RI than for CEM-LEI (86.67% vs. 53.33%, p), while specificity remained high for both techniques (91.56% vs. 90.26%, p). When both image types were assessed together, overall sensitivity increased to 93.33%. CEM-LEI sensitivity decreased with increasing breast density (63.16% for American College of Radiology (ACR) A + B vs. 36.36% for ACR C + D), whereas CEM-RI maintained high sensitivity irrespective of density (78.95% for ACR A+B vs. 100% for ACR C+D). CEM-RI findings led to modification of the planned surgical procedure in 23 of 184 patients (12.43%). The reoperation rate due to R1 resection after breast-conserving therapy was 3.80%. Conclusion: CEM-RI demonstrates significantly greater sensitivity than CEM-LEI for detecting MFMCC and contributes to clinically meaningful changes in surgical management.
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.