Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24713637›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

The added diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 3.0 T in nonpalpable breast lesions.

Laura G Merckel, Helena M Verkooijen, Nicky H G M Peters, Ritse M Mann, Wouter B Veldhuis, Remmert K Storm, Teun Weits, Katya M Duvivier, Thijs van Dalen, Willem P Th M Mali and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The potential of multiparametric MRI of the breast.The British journal of radiology · 2017
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

12 authors.

Laura G MerckelDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenImaging division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nicky H G M PetersDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wouter B VeldhuisDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Remmert K StormDepartment of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Teun WeitsDepartment of Radiology, Diakonessen Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Katya M DuvivierDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thijs van DalenDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessen Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Willem P Th M MaliDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Petra H M PeetersJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maurice A A J van den BoschDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the added diagnostic value of 3.0 Tesla breast MRI over conventional breast imaging in the diagnosis of in situ and invasive breast cancer and to explore the role of routine versus expert reading. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe evaluated MRI scans of patients with nonpalpable BI-RADS 3-5 lesions who underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced 3.0 Tesla breast MRI. Initially, MRI scans were read by radiologists in a routine clinical setting. All histologically confirmed index lesions were re-evaluated by two dedicated breast radiologists. Sensitivity and specificity for the three MRI readings were determined, and the diagnostic value of breast MRI in addition to conventional imaging was assessed. Interobserver reliability between the three readings was evaluated.

resultsMRI examinations of 207 patients were analyzed. Seventy-eight of 207 (37.7%) patients had a malignant lesion, of which 33 (42.3%) patients had pure DCIS and 45 (57.7%) invasive breast cancer. Sensitivity of breast MRI was 66.7% during routine, and 89.3% and 94.7% during expert reading. Specificity was 77.5% in the routine setting, and 61.0% and 33.3% during expert reading. In the routine setting, MRI provided additional diagnostic information over clinical information and conventional imaging, as the Area Under the ROC Curve increased from 0.76 to 0.81. Expert MRI reading was associated with a stronger improvement of the AUC to 0.87. Interobserver reliability between the three MRI readings was fair and moderate.

conclusions3.0 T breast MRI of nonpalpable breast lesions is of added diagnostic value for the diagnosis of in situ and invasive breast cancer.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityTumor Burden

Identifiers

PMID24713637
PMCPMC3979776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.