ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2015
Quantitative analysis of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The diagnostic value of vascular architecture in solid solitary pulmonary nodules quantified by dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Quantitative Analysis of DCE-MRI and RESOLVE-DWI for Differentiating Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma from Nasopharyngeal Lymphoid Hyperplasia.Journal of medical systems · 2020Article
- Circulating miRNAs in Untreated Breast Cancer: An Exploratory Multimodality Morpho-Functional Study.Cancers · 2019Article
- Article
- Evaluation of optimized magnetic resonance perfusion imaging scanning time window after contrast agent injection for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for breast lesions: comparison and correlation with pharmacokinetic evaluation from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.European radiology · 2016Article
- KJournal of medical physicsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the value of quantitative 3-Tesla (3T) magnetic resonance (MR) assessment in the diagnosis of breast lesions. A total of 44 patients with breast lesions were selected. All the patients underwent MR plain scanning and T1 dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. The vascular function parameters of the lesions, namely volume transfer constant (Ktrans), rate constant (Kep), extravascular extracellular volume fraction (Ve) and integrated area under the curve (iAUC), were acquired. These parameters were compared between benign and malignant breast lesions, and also among differential grades of invasive ductal carcinoma. The values of Ktrans, Kep and iAUC were significantly different between the benign and malignant tumors; however, the values of Ve in the benign and malignant tumors were not significantly different. The values of Ktrans, Kep and iAUC in invasive ductal carcinoma were significantly different between grade I and grade II, and between grade I and grade III; however, there was no significant difference between grade II and grade III. The Ve values in invasive ductal carcinoma did not significantly differ among grades I, II and III. Among the vascular function parameters, Ktrans exhibited the highest sensitivity and specificity in the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. Quantitative 3-T MR assessment is valuable in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. It can also provide reference values for the differentiation of the histological grade of breast invasive ductal carcinoma.
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.