ArticleLa Radiologia medica2010
Differentiation of normal and neoplastic bone tissue in dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: validation of a semiautomated technique.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was undertaken to clinically validate the accuracy of a semiautomated software tool for analysing the enhancement curve in focal malignant bone lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-three patients affected by cancer with malignant focal bone lesions underwent dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging using the following protocol: T1-weighted turbo spin-echo sequences (time to repeat [TR] 600 ms, time to echo [TE] 8.6 ms, field of view [FOV] 40x40 cm) before and after intravenous injection of gadolinium-containing contrast agent. Image postprocessing was performed using the software DyCoH. Each region of interest (5x5 pixels), drawn to include the area of the lesion with the highest values of the area under the curve map, was analysed to obtain time-intensity curves and relative perfusion parameters: time to peak (TTP), peak intensity (PI), slope (60-s slope), intensity at 60 s after contrast agent injection (60-s I) and final intensity (FI).
resultsData were obtained by analysing 86 malignant lesions and 86 apparently normal bone regions. PI, 60-s slope, 60-s I and FI were significantly different between neoplastic and apparently normal (p<0.001) samples. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were, respectively, 94%, 93% and 94% at a PI threshold of 100 (signal-to-noise ratio), with positive and negative predictive values of 93% and 94%. At a threshold value of 0.85 for 60-s slope, sensitivity and specificity values were both 91%.
conclusionsThe semiautomated technique we report appears to be accurate for identifying neoplastic tissue and for mapping perfusion parameters, with the added value of a consistent measurement of perfusion parameters on colour-coded maps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.