ReviewInsights into imaging2026
How to optimise breast cancer staging with contrast-enhanced mammography: current evidence and clinical implications.
Review in Insights into imaging, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a functional breast imaging technique that combines conventional mammographic morphology with contrast-based assessment of tumour vascularity. In the presurgical setting, CEM has gained interest as a tool to improve local staging by refining tumour extent evaluation and detecting additional disease beyond conventional imaging. This narrative review critically summarises current evidence on the role of CEM in preoperative breast cancer staging. Technical aspects, diagnostic performance for index lesion size assessment and detection of additional malignant foci, comparison with breast MRI, and impact on surgical planning are discussed, with attention to histological subtypes and clinically relevant scenarios encountered in daily practice. Available studies suggest that CEM provides tumour extent assessment comparable to MRI in selected settings, with higher specificity for additional lesions and meaningful influence on surgical decision-making. However, limitations related to contrast administration, radiation dose, evaluation of posterior structures, and nodal staging remain. Heterogeneity in protocols and outcome definitions also limits generalizability. CEM represents a valuable adjunct for presurgical breast cancer staging when appropriately integrated into multimodality workflows. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to define its impact on surgical outcomes and clarify its role within personalised breast cancer management. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This review provides a critical overview of CEM in preoperative breast cancer staging, highlighting its role as a complementary imaging tool when MRI is unavailable or unsuitable, and emphasising the need for prospective multicentre studies to validate its clinical impact. KEY POINTS: To define the role of CEM in preoperative breast cancer staging, focusing on tumour extent, detection of additional disease, and implications for surgical planning. CEM improves tumour extent assessment and detection of additional lesions, showing performance similar to MRI in selected clinical scenarios and influencing surgical planning in approximately 20-30% of patients.
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.