ArticleEuropean radiology2013
(1)H MR spectroscopy with external reference solution at 1.5 T for differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions: comparison using qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Article in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 1H-MRS evaluation of breast lesions by using total choline signal-to-noise ratio as an indicator of malignancy: a meta-analysis.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2015Pooled it
- In vivo post-contrast 1H-MRS evaluation of malignant and benign breast lesions: a meta-analysis.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Differential diagnosis between malignant and benign breast lesions using single-voxel proton MRS: a meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2014Pooled it
- Proton MR spectroscopy in the breast: Technical innovations and clinical applications.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Review
- In vivo MR spectroscopy for breast cancer diagnosis.BJR open · 2019Review
- Article
- Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-guided MR Spectroscopy in Breast Lesions using Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Imaging.European radiology · 2016Article
- Influence of calcium on choline measurements by 1H MR spectroscopy of thigh muscles.European radiology · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic capability of proton ((1)H) magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions on the basis of qualitative and quantitative approaches.
methodsWe performed single-voxel (1)H MRS for 208 breast lesions, identified a clear total composite choline compounds (tCho) peak of signal-to-noise of ≥2 to represent malignancy (qualitative approach), and regarded tCho concentration equal to or greater than the cut-off value to represent malignancy (quantitative approach). We compared the diagnostic ability of both approaches using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and McFadden's R (2).
resultsHistologically, 169 lesions were malignant; 39 were benign. The qualitative approach demonstrated 84.6 % sensitivity and 51.3 % specificity for differentiating malignant and benign lesions. The mean tCho concentration was 1.13 mmol/kg for malignancy, 0.43 mmol/kg for benignity. The optimal cut-off point was 0.61 mmol/kg, use of which achieved 68.1 % sensitivity and 79.4 % specificity. Calculated AIC and R (2) score suggested the superiority of the quantitative approach for differentiating malignancy.
conclusionsQuantitative MRS provides higher specificity than qualitative MRS for differentiating malignant from benign lesions and could be more useful as an additional examination in routine breast MR imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22777619What 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.