Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18697535›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2008

DCEMRI of breast lesions: is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement?

Sanaz A Jansen, Xiaobing Fan, Gregory S Karczmar, Hiroyuki Abe, Robert A Schmidt, Maryellen Giger, Gillian M Newstead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Sanaz A JansenDepartment of Radiology, The University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, MC2026, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA.
Xiaobing Fan
Gregory S Karczmar
Hiroyuki Abe
Robert A Schmidt
Maryellen Giger
Gillian M Newstead

Funding

FAST SPECTROSCOPIC MR IMAGING OF BREAST CANCERR01CA078803 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI KARCZMAR, GREGORY S · 1999 to 2007
$1.4M
New Approaches to Sampling and Analyzing Contrast MediaR21CA104774 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI NEWSTEAD, GILLIAN · 2005 to 2006
$357k
NCI NIH HHS 2 R01 CA078803-05A2NCI NIH HHS R01 CA078803NCI NIH HHS R21 CA104774NCI NIH HHS R21 CA104774-01 A2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To perform a pilot study investigating whether the sensitivity and specificity of kinetic parameters can be improved by considering mass and nonmass breast lesions separately. The contrast media uptake and washout kinetics in benign and malignant breast lesions were analyzed using an empirical mathematical model (EMM), and model parameters were compared in lesions with mass-like and nonmass-like enhancement characteristics. 34 benign and 78 malignant breast lesions were selected for review. Dynamic MR protocol: 1 pre and 5 postcontrast images acquired in the coronal plane using a 3D T1-weighted SPGR with 68 s timing resolution. An experienced radiologist classified the type of enhancement as mass, nonmass, or focus, according to the BI-RADS lexicon. The kinetic curve obtained from a radiologist-drawn region within the lesion was analyzed quantitatively using a three parameter EMM. Several kinetic parameters were then derived from the EMM parameters: the initial slope (Slope(ini)), curvature at the peak (kappa(peak)), time to peak (T(peak)), initial area under the curve at 30 s (iAUC30), and the signal enhancement ratio (SER). The BI-RADS classification of the lesions yielded: 70 mass lesions, 38 nonmass, 4 focus. For mass lesions, the contrast uptake rate (alpha), contrast washout rate (beta), iAUC30, SER, Slope(ini), T(peak) and kappa(peak) differed substantially between benign and malignant lesions, and after correcting for multiple tests of significance SER and T(peak) demonstrated significance (p < 0.007). For nonmass lesions, we did not find statistically significant differences in any of the parameters for benign vs. malignant lesions (p > 0.5). Kinetic parameters could distinguish benign and malignant mass lesions effectively, but were not quite as useful in discriminating benign from malignant nonmass lesions. If the results of this pilot study are validated in a larger trial, we expect that to maximize diagnostic utility, it will be better to classify lesion morphology as mass or nonmass-like enhancement prior to kinetic analysis.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveBreast NeoplasmsContrast MediaFemaleHumansKineticsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalRadiologyReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID18697535
PMCPMC2673559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.