Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41405665›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2025

Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy in a prone position in the diagnosis of breast cancer: technical parameters and clinical outcomes.

Giulia Morano, Federica Cicciarelli, Giuliana Moffa, Giacomo Bonito, Veronica Rizzo, Alessandro Calabrese, Francesca Galati, Federica Pediconi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Giulia MoranoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy.
Federica CicciarelliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy. federica.cicciarelli@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-7566-1798
Giuliana MoffaDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy.
Giacomo BonitoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy.
Veronica RizzoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy.
Alessandro CalabreseDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy.
Francesca GalatiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico "Umberto I", Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the technical parameters and clinical outcomes of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy for diagnosing breast cancer in patients with suspicious lesions showing post-contrast enhancement on CEM but undetectable on standard digital mammography (DM) or ultrasound (US). MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective study was conducted on 36 patients referred for CEM-guided biopsy based on suspicious (BI-RADS 4-5) enhancing-only lesions detected during previous CEM examinations and/or contrast-enhanced breast MRI (CE-MRI). Procedures were performed on a dedicated prone table using a vacuum-assisted biopsy device. Effectiveness parameters included success rate (lesion enhancement, diagnostic material collection, and correct clip positioning), procedure time, average glandular dose (AGD), compression force, and complication rate.

resultsFrom January to November 2024, 36 patients underwent CEM-guided biopsy, with a success rate of 97.2% (35/36). The median procedure time was 29 min. The AGD was 0.88 mGy (range 0.5-1.4 mGy, SD ± 0.22). The average compression force was 4.94 kg (range 2-7 kg, SD ± 1.1). Of the 35 lesions biopsied, 20 (57.1%) were masses and 15 (42.9%) non-mass enhancements, with a mean lesion size of 13.2 mm. Breast lesions were classified as BIRADS 4a (10/35), BIRADS 4b (5/35), BIRADS 4c (8/35), and BIRADS 5 (12/35). Histopathological findings showed 57.1% (20/35) of lesions were malignant. Lesion classification included 5.7% (B1), 34.3% (B2), 2.9% (B3), 31.4% (B5a), and 25.7% (B5b).

conclusionCEM-guided biopsy is an effective and accessible technique for targeting enhancing-only breast lesions, offering advantages over MRI-guided biopsy in terms of time, cost, and patient comfort. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy is an effective and accessible technique for targeting enhancing-only breast lesions, offering advantages over MRI-guided biopsy in terms of time, cost, and patient comfort. KEY POINTS: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy has recently gained traction as a reliable alternative to MRI for targeting enhancing-only lesions. This study explores the clinical implementation of CEM-guided biopsy in a prone position in our university hospital, assessing its efficacy, safety, and diagnostic accuracy. CEM-guided biopsy is a promising technique for the precise targeting of breast lesions, with advantages over MRI-guided biopsy.

Indexed as

Breast cancerCEM-guided biopsyContrast-enhanced mammographyMRI-guided biopsyProne table

Identifiers

PMID41405665
PMCPMC12712279

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.