ReviewWorld journal of radiology2016
Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients, in-vitro and in-vivo reproducibility.
Review in World journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic test accuracy of ADC values for identification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2020Pooled it
- MRI findings for differentiating benign and malignant soft tissue tumors: a narrative review- Part 1: diagnostic performance.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
- The role of diffusion-weighted MRI in biological image-guided radiation therapy: a roadmap.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Deep learning-enhanced super-resolution diffusion-weighted liver MRI: improved image quality, diagnostic performance, and acceleration.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Beyond the tumor: towards a cachexia-based host phenotype through body composition analysis in patients with resectable lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Review
- Multi-institution longitudinal apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in a diffusion weighted imaging phantom at room temperature.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Optimizing Multiparametric MRI Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Comprehensive Assessment Aligned with PI-RADS Guidelines.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of imaging methods for prognosis assessment in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: focus on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and esophagography.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Diffusion-weighted MRI with deep learning for visualizing treatment results of MR-guided HIFU ablation of uterine fibroids.European radiology · 2023Article
- Quantitative imaging of uterine cancers with diffusion-weighted MRI and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- Statistical considerations for repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative imaging biomarkers.BJR open · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging for Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2022Review
- Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study.European radiology · 2021Article
- Review
- Diffusion-weighted MRI of the liver: challenges and some solutions for the quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Review
- Variability and Standardization of Quantitative Imaging: Monoparametric to Multiparametric Quantification, Radiomics, and Artificial Intelligence.Investigative radiology · 2020Review
- Synthetic Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for HighProstate cancer · 2020Article
- Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE-MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Review
- Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging using a preclinical 1 T PET/MRI in healthy and tumor-bearing rats.EJNMMI research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is considerable disparity in the published apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values across different anatomies. Institutions are increasingly assessing repeatability and reproducibility of the derived ADC to determine its variation, which could potentially be used as an indicator in determining tumour aggressiveness or assessing tumour response. In this manuscript, a review of selected articles published to date in healthy extra-cranial body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is presented, detailing reported ADC values and discussing their variation across different studies. In total 115 studies were selected including 28 for liver parenchyma, 15 for kidney (renal parenchyma), 14 for spleen, 13 for pancreatic body, 6 for gallbladder, 13 for prostate, 13 for uterus (endometrium, myometrium, cervix) and 13 for fibroglandular breast tissue. Median ADC values in selected studies were found to be 1.28 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in liver, 1.94 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in kidney, 1.60 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in pancreatic body, 0.85 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in spleen, 2.73 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in gallbladder, 1.64 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s and 1.31 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in prostate peripheral zone and central gland respectively (combined median value of 1.54×10(-3) mm(2)/s), 1.44 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in endometrium, 1.53 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in myometrium, 1.71 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in cervix and 1.92 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in breast. In addition, six phantom studies and thirteen in vivo studies were summarized to compare repeatability and reproducibility of the measured ADC. All selected phantom studies demonstrated lower intra-scanner and inter-scanner variation compared to in vivo studies. Based on the findings of this manuscript, it is recommended that protocols need to be optimised for the body part studied and that system-induced variability must be established using a standardized phantom in any clinical study. Reproducibility of the measured ADC must also be assessed in a volunteer population, as variations are far more significant in vivo compared with phantom studies.
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.