ArticleEuropean radiology2016
Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast tumours at 3 Tesla and 7 Tesla: a comparison.
Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of breast tumor tissue selection in diffusion weighted imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- LHRH-Conjugated Magnetite Nanoparticles and Nanorods as Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents for Targeting Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparison of single shot and multishot diffusion-weighted imaging in 5-T magnetic resonance imaging for brain disease diagnosis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Diffusion Breast MRI: Current Standard and Emerging Techniques.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Radiomics-based machine learning analysis and characterization of breast lesions with multiparametric diffusion-weighted MR.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values.European radiology · 2017Article
- Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: Clinical applications and emerging techniques.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017Review
- The potential of multiparametric MRI of the breast.The British journal of radiology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare bilateral diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) at 3 T and 7 T in the same breast tumour patients.
methodsTwenty-eight patients were included in this IRB-approved study (mean age 56 ± 16 years). Before contrast-enhanced imaging, bilateral DWI with b = 0 and 850 s/mm(2) was performed in 2:56 min (3 T) and 3:48 min (7 T), using readout-segmented echo planar imaging (rs-EPI) with a 1.4 × 1.4 mm(2) (3 T)/0.9 × 0.9 mm(2) (7 T) in-plane resolution. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC), signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were assessed.
resultsTwenty-eight lesions were detected (18 malignant, 10 benign). CNR and SNR were comparable at both field strengths (p > 0.3). Mean ADC values at 7 T were 4-22% lower than at 3 T (p ≤ 0.03). An ADC threshold of 1.275 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s resulted in a diagnostic specificity of 90% at both field strengths. The sensitivity was 94% and 100% at 3 T and 7 T, respectively.
conclusion7-T DWI of the breast can be performed with 2.4-fold higher spatial resolution than 3 T, without significant differences in SNR if compared to 3 T. KEY POINTS: • 7 T provides a 2.4-fold higher resolution in breast DWI than 3 T • 7 T DWI has a high diagnostic accuracy comparable to that at 3 T • At 7 T malignant lesions had 22 % lower ADC than at 3 T (p < 0.001).
Indexed as
Identifiers
26310582What 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.