Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27187599›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

Arterial input functions in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: which model performs best when assessing breast cancer response?

David K Woolf, N Jane Taylor, Andreas Makris, Nina Tunariu, David J Collins, Sonia P Li, Mei-Lin Ah-See, Mark Beresford, Anwar R Padhani

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

David K Woolf1 Breast Cancer Research Unit, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
N Jane Taylor2 Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK.
Andreas Makris1 Breast Cancer Research Unit, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
Nina Tunariu3 CR UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
David J Collins3 CR UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
Sonia P Li1 Breast Cancer Research Unit, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
Mei-Lin Ah-See1 Breast Cancer Research Unit, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
Mark Beresford4 Breast Unit, Royal United Hospital Bath, Bath, UK.
Anwar R Padhani2 Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK.
Mount Vernon Cancer Centre · GBMount Vernon Hospital · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal United Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of six models of population arterial input function (AIF) in the setting of primary breast cancer and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The ability to fit patient dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data, provide physiological plausible data and detect pathological response was assessed.

methodsQuantitative DCE-MRI parameters were calculated for 27 patients at baseline and after 2 cycles of NAC for 6 AIFs. Pathological complete response detection was compared with change in these parameters from a reproduction cohort of 12 patients using the Bland-Altman approach and receiver-operating characteristic analysis.

resultsThere were fewer fit failures pre-NAC for all models, with the modified Fritz-Hansen having the fewest pre-NAC (3.6%) and post-NAC (18.8%), contrasting with the femoral artery AIF (19.4% and 43.3%, respectively). Median transfer constant values were greatest for the Weinmann function and also showed greatest reductions with treatment (-68%). Reproducibility (r) was the lowest for the Weinmann function (r = -49.7%), with other AIFs ranging from r = -27.8 to -39.2%.

conclusionUsing the best performing AIF is essential to maximize the utility of quantitative DCE-MRI parameters in predicting response to NAC treatment. Applying our criteria, the modified Fritz-Hansen and cosine bolus approximated Parker AIF models performed best. The Fritz-Hansen and biexponential approximated Parker AIFs performed less well, and the Weinmann and femoral artery AIFs are not recommended. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We demonstrate that using the most appropriate AIF can aid successful prediction of response to NAC in breast cancer.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaImage EnhancementMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultArteriesBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalNeoadjuvant TherapyReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaGadolinium DTPA

Identifiers

PMID27187599
PMCPMC5257308
OpenAlexW2396647838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.