ReviewInsights into imaging2026
Contrast-enhanced mammography in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy from a multidisciplinary perspective.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a morphofunctional imaging technique that is gaining interest and acceptance in clinical practice. With increasing use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in breast cancer and of precision medicine, the need for equitable access to appropriate high-quality advanced imaging for monitoring response has become ever more relevant. CEM is an imaging alternative for NAT monitoring, with encouraging initial results and a good logistical profile. In this educational review from a practical perspective, we explore key aspects for response assessment of NAT and CEM roles in this setting, based on relevant literature and the authors' clinical experience. Pearls and pitfalls, as well as opportunities and challenges for NAT monitoring with CEM, will be approached from the perspectives of the radiologist, the oncologist, the surgeon, the pathologist, and the patient. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The early experience with CEM in the NAT setting is positive, encouraging its further development, not only from the radiologist's view but also from a broad multidisciplinary perspective. KEY POINTS: CEM seems to be non-inferior to MRI for response evaluation and preoperative re-staging after NAT. CEM may predict and monitor in vivo chemosensitivity during NAT. CEM may allow a greater patient flow rate compared to MRI.
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.