Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24433723›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2014

Assessing reproducibility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging studies in a murine model of HER2+ breast cancer.

Jennifer G Whisenant, Gregory D Ayers, Mary E Loveless, Stephanie L Barnes, Daniel C Colvin, Thomas E Yankeelov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Towards integration ofScientific reports · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

6 authors.

Jennifer G WhisenantInstitute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Program in Chemical and Physical Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675.
Gregory D AyersDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675.
Mary E LovelessInstitute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675.
Stephanie L BarnesInstitute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675.
Daniel C ColvinInstitute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675.
Thomas E YankeelovInstitute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Program in Chemical and Physical Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675; Department of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675. Electronic address: tom.yankeelov@vanderbilt.edu.

Funding

Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment Research ProgramP30CA068485 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MATTHEW J TYSKA · 1995 to 2026
$172.8M
TISSUE CoreP50CA098131 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI PARK, BEN HO, PIETENPOL, JENNIFER A · 2003 to 2024
$48.7M
Image Driven Multi-Scale Modeling to Predict Treatment Response in Breast CancerU01CA174706 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO, YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2018
$2.5M
Evaluation and Validation of Imaging Biomarkers of Tumor Response to TreatmentR01CA138599 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MCINTYRE, JAMES OLIVER · 2010 to 2015
$2.2M
Small Animal PET ScannerS10RR017858 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI KESSLER, ROBERT MICHAEL · 2003 to 2003
$500k
Integrating Quantitative Imaging and Biophysical Models to Predict Tumor GrowthR21CA169387 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2014
$368k
NCI NIH HHS 1R21CA169387NCI NIH HHS P30 CA068485NCI NIH HHS P30 CA68485NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098131NCI NIH HHS P50 CA98131NCI NIH HHS R01 CA138599NCI NIH HHS R21 CA169387NCI NIH HHS U01 CA174706NCRR NIH HHS 1 S10 RR17858NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR017858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe use of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) as a surrogate biomarker of response in preclinical studies is increasing. However, before a biomarker can be reliably employed to assess treatment response, the reproducibility of the technique must be established. There is a paucity of literature that quantifies the reproducibility of DW-MRI in preclinical studies; thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate DW-MRI reproducibility in a murine model of HER2+ breast cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsTest-Retest DW-MRI scans separated by approximately six hours were acquired from eleven athymic female mice with HER2+ xenografts using a pulsed gradient spin echo diffusion-weighted sequence with three b values [150, 500, and 800s/mm(2)]. Reproducibility was assessed for the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from tumor and muscle tissue regions.

resultsThe threshold to reflect a change in tumor physiology in a cohort of mice is defined by the 95% confidence interval (CI), which was±0.0972×10(-3)mm(2)/s (±11.8%) for mean tumor ADC. The repeatability coefficient defines this threshold for an individual mouse, which was±0.273×10(-3)mm(2)/s. The 95% CI and repeatability coefficient for mean ADC of muscle tissue were±0.0949×10(-3)mm(2)/s (±8.30%) and±0.266×10(-3)mm(2)/s, respectively.

conclusionsMean ADC of tumors is reproducible and appropriate for detecting treatment-induced changes on both an individual and mouse cohort basis.

Indexed as

AnimalsBreast NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMiceMice, NudeReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesApparent diffusion coefficientDiffusion-weighted MRIMouseReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID24433723
PMCPMC3939718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.