ArticleLa Radiologia medica2009
Contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging of claustrophobic or oversized patients using an open low-field magnet.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.PloS one · 2013Trial
- Minimizing table time in patients with claustrophobia using focused ferumoxytol-enhanced MR angiography (The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Current and future applications of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to breast and ovarian cancer patient management.Puerto Rico health sciences journal · 2010Review
- Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666.Radiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA number of women who should undergo magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast cannot use this diagnostic tool due to claustrophobia or excessive body size for the restricted confines of standard closed MR systems. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of open low-field magnet breast MR imaging in such patients using a high-relaxivity contrast agent. MATERIALS AND
methodsOf 397 consecutive patients undergoing breast MR imaging, 379 (95.5%) were studied at 1.5 T. Due to claustrophobia (n=15) or large body size (n=3), 18 patients (4.5%) were studied on a 0.2-T open magnet using a body coil. A 3D dynamic T1-weighted gradient-echo 94-s sequence was acquired with intravenous injection of gadobenate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg). The standard of reference was pathological examination for 16 lesions classified with a maximal Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score from 3 to 5, fine-needle aspiration cytology and >or=2-year follow-up for two lesions classified as BI-RADS 3, and >or=2-years follow-up for five lesions classified as BI-RADS 2.
resultsDiagnostic MR image quality was achieved for 20/23 lesions in 15/18 patients. Three lesions (two invasive cancers and a cyst) were not assessed due to patient movement and considered as two false negatives and one false positive. Thus, an 86% sensitivity [13/15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 70%-100%], an 87% specificity (7/8; 95% CI: 65%-100%) and an 87% accuracy (20/23; 95% CI: 73%-100%) were obtained. The intraclass correlation coefficient between MR and pathologic lesion size was 0.845.
conclusionIn claustrophobic or oversized patients, open low-field breast MR with gadobenate dimeglumine yields good diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19194774What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.