1. Association of Breast Surgery . Surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35 (suppl 1): S1–S22.
Google Scholar | Crossref2. Grimsby, GM, Gray, R, Dueck, A, et al. Is there concordance of invasive breast cancer pathologic tumor size with magnetic resonance imaging? Am J Surg 2009; 198: 500–504.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline3. Warren, RM, Macaskill, P, Irwig, L, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3248–3258.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Fallenberg, EM, Schmitzberger, FF, Amer, H, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI: clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 2752–2764.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Steger-Hartmann, T, Hofmeister, R, Ernst, R, et al. A review of preclinical safety data for magnevist (gadopentetate dimeglumine) in the context of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Invest Radiol 2010; 45: 520–528.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Jost, G, Lenhard, DC, Sieber, MA, et al. Signal increase on unenhanced T1-weighted images in the rat brain after repeated, extended doses of gadolinium-based contrast agents comparison of linear and macrocyclic agents. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 83–89.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Robert, P, Violas, X, Grand, S, et al. Linear gadolinium-based contrast agents are associated with brain gadolinium retention in healthy rats. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 73–82.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Dromain, C, Thibault, F, Diekmann, F, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14: R94.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Emaus, MJ, Bakker, MF, Peeters, PHM, et al. MR imaging as an additional screening modality for the detection of breast cancer in women aged 50–75 years with extremely dense breasts: the DENSE Trial Study Design. Radiology 2015; 277: 527–537.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Berg, WA, Blume, JD, Cormack, JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151–2163.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Lewin, JM, Isaacs, PK, Vance, V, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229: 261–268.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Łuczyńska, E, Heinze-Paluchowska, S, Hendrick, E, et al. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Med Sci Monit 2015; 21: 1358–1367.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. Mennella, S, Garlaschi, A, Paparo, F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: factors affecting the accuracy of preoperative lesion sizing. Acta Radiol 2015; 56: 260–268.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals14. Mann, RM, Kuhl, CK, Kinkel, K, et al. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1307–1318.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Sardanelli, F, Boetes, C, Borisch, B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 1296–1316.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. American College of Radiology . ACR BI-RADS Atlas 5th Edition. American College of Radiology; 2013.
Google Scholar17. Marubini, E, Pizzamiglio, S, Verderio, P. Agreement between observers: its measure on a quantitative scale. Int J Biol Markers 2005; 20: 73–78.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals18. Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 327: 307–310.
Google Scholar | Crossref19. Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135–160.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals20. Holman, CDJ . Analysis of interobserver variation on a programmable calculator. Am J Epidemiol 1984; 120: 154–160.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Dromain, C, Thibault, F, Diekmann, F, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14: R94.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Lobbes, MBI, Lalji, U, Houwers, J, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 256–264.
Google Scholar | Medline24. Fallenberg, EM, Dromain, C, Diekmann, F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 256–264.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline25. Diekmann, F, Freyer, M, Diekmann, S, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2011; 78: 112–121.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline26. Jong, RA, Yaffe, MJ, Skarpathiotakis, M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228: 842–850.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Lewin, JM, Isaacs, PK, Vance, V, Larke, FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229: 261–268.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline28. Diekmann, F, Diekmann, S, Jeunehomme, F, et al. Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 2005; 40: 397–404.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline29. Lee-Felker, SA, Tekchandani, L, Thomas, M, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease. Radiology 2017; 285: 389–400.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline30. Sogani, J, Morris, EA, Kaplan, JB, et al. Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging. Radiology 2017; 282: 63–73.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline31. Jochelson, MS, Dershaw, DD, Sung, JS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 2013; 266: 743–751.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline32. Singletary, SE . Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002; 184: 383–393.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline33. Behm, EC, Beckmann, KR, Dahlstrom, JE, et al. Surgical margins and risk of locoregional recurrence in invasive breast cancer: an analysis of 10-year data from the breast cancer treatment quality assurance project. Breast 2013; 22: P839–P844.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline34. blandr: Bland-Altman method comparison . https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/blandr/index.html
Google Scholar35. Lobbes, MBI, Nelemans, PJ. Good correlation does not automatically imply good agreement: the trouble with comparing tumour size by breast MRI versus histopathology. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: E906–E907.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline36. Kamal, RM, Helal, MH, Mansour, SM, et al. Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography? Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20160157.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline