ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2026
Comparative Analysis of CEM and Breast MRI: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBreast cancer is a prevalent malignancy where accurate preoperative assessment is crucial for treatment planning. Breast MRI is a highly sensitive imaging modality for breast cancer detection. It is widely used preoperatively and can assist with local staging, tumour size assessment, detection of additional tumour foci and assessment of treatment response in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEM) is an emerging alternative with comparable diagnostic performance and shorter examination times. This study retrospectively compares CEM and MRI in measuring breast cancer extent.
methodsIn this retrospective study conducted at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, 58 patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer who underwent both CEM and MRI between January 2020 and July 2023 were included. Lesion sizes were evaluated on both modalities and compared with the postoperative histopathology specimen using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Pearson correlation.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in average tumour size between CEM and MRI (28.8 mm (SD = 22.8) on CEM and 31.8 mm (SD = 24.2) on MRI; p = 0.1058). Both imaging modalities demonstrated similar measurement precision when compared with the surgical specimen (12.9 mm vs. 12.2 mm absolute mean difference between histopathological and radiological measurement - MRI and CEM respectively). Pearson analysis demonstrated a good correlation with postoperative histopathology in size measurement, with CEM showing slightly stronger correlation (r = 0.7858, p < 0.0001, n = 45) compared with MRI (r = 0.6726, p < 0.0001, n = 46). DISCUSSION: CEM appears to be a viable alternative to MRI. This study demonstrates high sensitivity of CEM and MRI for breast cancer detection, with no statistically significant difference in maximum diameter of enhancing abnormalities. Both modalities strongly correlate with histopathology. Further studies are required to validate the role of CEM in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.