Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 421

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bilateral Contrast-enhanced Dual-Energy Digital Mammography: Feasibility and Comparison with Conventional Digital Mammography and MR Imaging in Women with Known Breast Carcinoma

Open access
Jochelson, Maxine S., Dershaw, D. David, Sung, Janice S., Heerdt, Alexandra S., Thornton, Cynthia, Moskowitz, Chaya S., Ferrara, Jessica, Morris, Elizabeth A.·2013·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine feasibility of performing bilateral dual-energy (DE) contrast agent-enhanced (CE) digital mammography and to evaluate its performance compared with conventional digital mammography and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in women with known breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was obtained. Patient accrual began in March 2010 and ended in August 2011. Mean patient age was 49.6 years (range, 25-74 years). Feasibility was evaluated in 10 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were injected with 1.5 mL per kilogram of body weight of iohexol and imaged between 2.5 and 10 minutes after injection. Once feasibility was confirmed, 52 women with newly diagnosed cancer who had undergone breast MR imaging gave consent to undergo DE CE digital mammography. Positive findings were confirmed with pathologic findings. RESULTS: Feasibility was confirmed with no adverse events. Visualization of tumor enhancement was independent of timing after contrast agent injection for up to 10 minutes. MR imaging and DE CE digital mammography both depicted 50 (96%) of 52 index tumors; conventional mammography depicted 42 (81%). Lesions depicted by using DE CE digital mammography ranged from 4 to 67 mm in size (median, 17 mm). DE CE digital mammography depicted 14 (56%) of 25 additional ipsilateral cancers compared with 22 (88%) of 25 for MR imaging. There were two false-positive findings with DE CE digital mammography and 13 false-positive findings with MR imaging. There was one contralateral cancer, which was not evident with either modality. CONCLUSION: Bilateral DE CE digital mammography was feasible and easily accomplished. It was used to detect known primary tumors at a rate comparable to that of MR imaging and higher than that of conventional digital mammography. DE CE digital mammography had a lower sensitivity for detecting additional ipsilateral cancers than did MR imaging, but the specificity was higher. © RSNA, 2012.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.12121084

Cites

23 of 23 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

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 421

Metadata

Authors
Jochelson, M. S., Dershaw, D. D., Sung, J. S., Heerdt, A. S., Thornton, C., Moskowitz, C. S., Ferrara, J., & Morris, E. A.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2013-03
Volume
266
Issue
3
Pages
743-751
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W1974967625
Cited by
421
References
23
FWCI
11.62
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bilateral Contrast-enhanced Dual-Energy Digital Mammography: Feasibility and Comparison with Conventional Digital Mammography and MR Imaging in Women with Known Breast Carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.12121084
The paper
Jochelson, M. S., Dershaw, D. D., Sung, J. S., Heerdt, A. S., Thornton, C., Moskowitz, C. S., Ferrara, J., & Morris, E. A. (2013). Bilateral Contrast-enhanced Dual-Energy Digital Mammography: Feasibility and Comparison with Conventional Digital Mammography and MR Imaging in Women with Known Breast Carcinoma. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084

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.