ArticleRadiology2014
The effects of applying breast compression in dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging.
Article in Radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of three arm-positioning techniques for minimizing motion artifacts in breast magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective volunteer study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Is the Level of Contrast Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Associated with the Presence and Biological Aggressiveness of Breast Cancer?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- MR Elastography of the Breast: Evolution of Technique, Case Examples, and Future Directions.Clinical breast cancer · 2021Review
- Article
- Correcting time-intensity curves in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI for inhomogeneous excitation fields at 7T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
- Lipid-weighted intraoperative photoacoustic tomography of breast tumors: Volumetric comparison to preoperative MRI.Photoacoustics · 2020Article
- Comparison of conventional DCE-MRI and a novel golden-angle radial multicoil compressed sensing method for the evaluation of breast lesion conspicuity.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017Article
- Quantification of breast stiffness using MR elastography at 3 Tesla with a soft sternal driver: A reproducibility study.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017Article
- Separation of benign and malignant breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in a biopsy cohort.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017Article
- Focal brachial enhancement deficit: a normal anatomic variant?Skeletal radiology · 2016Article
- Relating Doses of Contrast Agent Administered to TIC and Semi-Quantitative Parameters on DCE-MRI: Based on a Murine Breast Tumor Model.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effects of breast compression on breast cancer masses, contrast material enhancement of glandular tissue, and quality of magnetic resonance (MR) images in the identification and characterization of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective study, with waiver of informed consent. Images from 300 MR imaging examinations in 149 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 51.5 years ± 10.9; age range, 22-76 years) were evaluated. The women underwent diagnostic MR imaging (no compression) and MR-guided biopsy (with compression) between June 2008 and February 2013. Breast compression was expressed as a percentage relative to the noncompressed breast. Percentage enhancement difference was calculated between noncompressed- and compressed-breast images obtained in early and delayed contrast-enhanced phases. Breast density, lesion type (mass vs non-masslike enhancement [NMLE]), lesion size, percentage compression, and kinetic curve type were evaluated. Linear regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and κ test were performed.
resultsMean percentage compression was 31.3% ± 9.2 (range, 5.8%-53.2%). Percentage enhancement was higher in noncompressed- versus compressed-breast studies in early (146% ± 66 vs 107% ± 42, respectively; P < .001) and delayed (158% ± 68 vs 107% ± 42, respectively; P = .1) phases. Among breast lesions, 12% (seven of 59) were significantly smaller when compressed, which led to underestimation of TNM classification (P < .001). Breast masses (n = 35) showed significantly higher early percentage enhancement (157% ± 71) than lesions with NMLE (n = 15, 120% ± 40; P = .02) and a percentage enhancement difference (47.5% ± 64 vs 17% ± 28, respectively; P = .023). Kinetic curve performance for identifying invasive cancer decreased after compression (area under ROC curve = 0.53 vs 0.71, respectively; P = .02). Breast compression resulted in complete loss of enhancement of nine of 210 lesions (4%).
conclusionBreast compression during biopsy affected breast lesion detection, lesion size, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging interpretation and performance. Limiting the application of breast compression is recommended, except when clinically necessary.
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.