Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26901876›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Relating Doses of Contrast Agent Administered to TIC and Semi-Quantitative Parameters on DCE-MRI: Based on a Murine Breast Tumor Model.

Menglin Wu, Li Lu, Qi Zhang, Qi Guo, Feixiang Zhao, Tongwei Li, Xuening Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Menglin WuRadiology department, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Hexi District, Tianjin, China.
Li LuDepartment of General surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Heping District, Tianjin, China.
Qi ZhangRadiology department, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Hexi District, Tianjin, China.
Qi GuoRadiology department, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Hexi District, Tianjin, China.
Feixiang ZhaoRadiology department, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Hexi District, Tianjin, China.
Tongwei LiRadiology department, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Hexi District, Tianjin, China.
Xuening ZhangRadiology department, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Hexi District, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the changes in the time-signal intensity curve(TIC) type and semi-quantitative parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced(DCE)imaging in relation to variations in the contrast agent(CA) dosage in the Walker 256 murine breast tumor model, and to determine the appropriate parameters for the evaluation ofneoadjuvantchemotherapy(NAC)response. MATERIALS AND

methodsWalker 256 breast tumor models were established in 21 rats, which were randomly divided into three groups of7rats each. Routine scanning and DCE-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the rats were performed using a 7T MR scanner. The three groups of rats were administered different dosages of the CA0.2mmol/kg, 0.3mmol/kg, and 0.5mmol/kg, respectively; and the corresponding TICs the semi-quantitative parameters were calculated and compared among the three groups.

resultsThe TICs were not influenced by the CA dosage and presented a washout pattern in all of the tumors evaluated and weren't influenced by the CA dose. The values of the initial enhancement percentage(Efirst), initial enhancement velocity(Vfirst), maximum signal(Smax), maximum enhancement percentage(Emax), washout percentage(Ewash), and signal enhancement ratio(SER) showed statistically significant differences among the three groups (F = 16.952, p = 0.001; F = 69.483, p<0.001; F = 54.838, p<0.001; F = 12.510, p = 0.003; F = 5.248, p = 0.031; F = 9.733, p = 0.006, respectively). However, the values of the time to peak(Tpeak), maximum enhancement velocity(Vmax), and washout velocity(Vwash)did not differ significantly among the three dosage groups (F = 0.065, p = 0.937; F = 1.505, p = 0.273; χ2 = 1.423, p = 0.319, respectively); the washout slope(Slopewash), too, was uninfluenced by the dosage(F = 1.654, p = 0.244).

conclusionThe CA dosage didn't affect the TIC type, Tpeak, Vmax, Vwash or Slopewash. These dose-independent parameters as well as the TIC type might be more useful for monitoring the NAC response because they allow the comparisons of the DCE data obtained using different CA dosages.

Indexed as

AnimalsBreast NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorContrast MediaDisease Models, AnimalFemaleMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammary Neoplasms, AnimalMiceContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID26901876
PMCPMC4767184

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.