ArticleThe British journal of radiology2015
Quantitative evaluation of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast MRI. A feasibility study with a semi-automatic and automatic software compared to observer-based scores.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Automated Segmentation of Tissues Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review.Academic radiology · 2019Pooled it
- Evaluation of background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: a systematic review.The British journal of radiology · 2017Pooled it
- The relationship between background parenchymal enhancement, amount of fibroglandular tissue and synchronous contralateral breast cancer in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Differentiating Breast Tumors from Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: The Role of Radiomics-A Pilot Reader Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: A comprehensive review.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2020Review
- Precision diagnostics based on machine learning-derived imaging signatures.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2019Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of future breast cancer using algorithmically measured background parenchymal enhancement on high-risk screening MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Article
- MRI Texture Analysis of Background Parenchymal Enhancement of the Breast.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) MRI to investigate cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within dural reflections of posterior fossa cranial nerves.The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
- Assessment of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement Parameters to Improve Determination of Individual Breast Cancer Risk.Journal of computer assisted tomographyArticle
- Determinants of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on breast MRI.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate quantitative measurements of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast MRI and compare them with observer-based scores.
methodsBPE of 48 patients (mean age: 48 years; age range: 36-66 years) referred to 3.0-T breast MRI between 2012 and 2014 was evaluated independently and blindly to each other by two radiologists. BPE was estimated qualitatively with the standard Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scale and quantitatively with a semi-automatic and an automatic software interface. To assess intrareader agreement, MRIs were re-read after a 4-month interval by the same two readers. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and the Bland-Altman method were used to compare the methods used to estimate BPE. p-value <0.05 was considered significant.
resultsThe mean value of BPE with the semi-automatic software evaluated by each reader was 14% (range: 2-79%) for Reader 1 and 16% (range: 1-61%) for Reader 2 (p > 0.05). Mean values of BPE percentages for the automatic software were 17.5 ± 13.1 (p > 0.05 vs semi-automatic). The automatic software was unable to produce BPE values for 2 of 48 (4%) patients. With BI-RADS, interreader and intrareader values were κ = 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.91] and κ = 0.69 (95% CI 0.46-0.93), respectively. With semi-automated software, interreader and intrareader values were κ = 0.81 (95% CI 0.59-0.99) and κ = 0.85 (95% CI 0.43-0.99), respectively. BI-RADS scores correlated with the automatic (r = 0.55, p < 0.001) and semi-automatic scores (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). Automatic scores correlated with the semi-automatic scores (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). The mean percentage difference between automatic and semi-automatic scores was 3.5% (95% CI 1.5-5.2).
conclusionBPE quantitative evaluation is feasible with both semi-automatic and automatic software and correlates with radiologists' estimation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Computerized BPE quantitative evaluation is feasible with both semi-automatic and automatic software. Computerized BPE quantitative scores correlate with radiologists' estimation.
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.