Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 992

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group

Open access
Sardanelli, Francesco, Boetes, Carla, Borisch, Bettina, Decker, Thomas, Federico, Massimo, Gilbert, Fiona J., Helbich, Thomas, Heywang-Köbrunner, Sylvia H., Kaiser, Werner A., Kerin, Michael J., Mansel, Robert E., Marotti, Lorenza, Martincich, Laura, Mauriac, Louis, Meijers-Heijboer, Hanne, Orecchia, Roberto, Panizza, Pietro, Ponti, Antonio, Purushotham, Arnie D., Regitnig, Peter, Del Turco, Marco Rosselli, Thibault, Fabienne, Wilson, Robin·2010·European Journal of Cancer

Abstract

The use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is rapidly increasing. EUSOMA organised a workshop in Milan on 20-21st October 2008 to evaluate the evidence currently available on clinical value and indications for breast MRI. Twenty-three experts from the disciplines involved in breast disease management - including epidemiologists, geneticists, oncologists, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons - discussed the evidence for the use of this technology in plenary and focused sessions. This paper presents the consensus reached by this working group. General recommendations, technical requirements, methodology, and interpretation were firstly considered. For the following ten indications, an overview of the evidence, a list of recommendations, and a number of research issues were defined: staging before treatment planning; screening of high-risk women; evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy; patients with breast augmentation or reconstruction; occult primary breast cancer; breast cancer recurrence; nipple discharge; characterisation of equivocal findings at conventional imaging; inflammatory breast cancer; and male breast. The working group strongly suggests that all breast cancer specialists cooperate for an optimal clinical use of this emerging technology and for future research, focusing on patient outcome as primary end-point.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 992

Metadata

Authors
Sardanelli, F., Boetes, C., Borisch, B., Decker, T., Federico, M., Gilbert, F. J., Helbich, T., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Kaiser, W. A., Kerin, M. J., Mansel, R. E., Marotti, L., Martincich, L., Mauriac, L., Meijers-Heijboer, H., Orecchia, R., Panizza, P., Ponti, A., Purushotham, A. D., Regitnig, P., Del Turco, M. R., Thibault, F., & Wilson, R.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-05
Volume
46
Issue
8
Pages
1296-1316
ISSN
0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160374037
Cited by
992
References
102
FWCI
44.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.