ArticleJMA journal2026
Feasibility of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Japan: A Pilot Study.
Article in JMA journal, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) provides diagnostic capability comparable to dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI); however, in Japan, CESM is not routinely performed because the use of iodinated contrast agents for CESM is not approved. Evidence on CESM from Japan is therefore scarce. This study assessed the feasibility, diagnostic performance, and patient experience of CESM in Japanese patients with breast cancer. Methods: This study enrolled women aged 20-80 years with histologically confirmed breast cancer who were scheduled for surgery. CESM and DCE-MRI were performed within two months preoperatively. Images were independently interpreted by a breast radiologist. Tumor size, Breast Imaging Report and Data System (BI-RADS) category, and breast density were assessed and compared with postoperative pathology. Average glandular dose (AGD) and contrast-related reactions were evaluated. Patients answered questions regarding examination time, comfort, positioning, and preferred modality. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship among tumor sizes measured on CESM, DCE-MRI, and pathology. Results: A total of nine patients (11 malignant lesions) were analyzed. CESM detected 10 lesions (detection rate 90.9%) and DCE-MRI detected all lesions (100%). Tumor size measured by CESM (r = 0.95) and DCE-MRI (r = 0.94) showed strong correlation with pathology. AGD averaged 3.1 mGy, and no allergic reactions occurred. Patients preferred CESM primarily due to shorter examination time, while noise and long duration were the main disadvantages of DCE-MRI. Conclusions: CESM demonstrated high diagnostic performance that was comparable to DCE-MRI and superior to mammography, particularly for dense breasts. Considering its shorter examination time and favorable patient acceptance, CESM may serve as a valuable diagnostic option in Japan, thus warranting further clinical research.
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.