Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28453516›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

On a fractional order calculus model in diffusion weighted breast imaging to differentiate between malignant and benign breast lesions detected on X-ray screening mammography.

Sebastian Bickelhaupt, Franziska Steudle, Daniel Paech, Anna Mlynarska, Tristan Anselm Kuder, Wolfgang Lederer, Heidi Daniel, Martin Freitag, Stefan Delorme, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Clinical MR Biomarkers.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Multimodal apparent diffusion MRI model in noninvasive evaluation of breast cancer and Ki-67 expression.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Digital Analysis in Breast Imaging.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    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

11 authors.

Sebastian BickelhauptGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Department of Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1043-4462
Franziska SteudleGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Department of Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.
Daniel PaechGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Department of Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.
Anna MlynarskaGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Medical Physics in Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tristan Anselm KuderGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Medical Physics in Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.
Wolfgang LedererRadiological Clinic at the ATOS Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Bismarckplatz 9-15, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidi DanielRadiology Center Mannheim (RZM), Mannheim, Rosengartenplatz 7, Mannheim, Germany.
Martin FreitagGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Department of Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan DelormeGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Department of Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Department of Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.
Frederik Bernd LaunGerman Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Medical Physics in Radiology, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate a fractional order calculus (FROC) model in diffusion weighted imaging to differentiate between malignant and benign breast lesions in breast cancer screening work-up using recently introduced parameters (βFROC, DFROC and μFROC). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective analysis within a prospective IRB-approved study included 51 participants (mean 58.4 years) after written informed consent. All patients had suspicious screening mammograms and indication for biopsy. Prior to biopsy, full diagnostic contrast-enhanced MRI examination was acquired including diffusion-weighted-imaging (DWI, b = 0,100,750,1500 s/mm2). Conventional apparent diffusion coefficient Dapp and FROC parameters (βFROC, DFROC and μFROC) as suggested further indicators of diffusivity components were measured in benign and malignant lesions. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the parameters.

results29/51 patients histopathologically revealed malignant lesions. The analysis revealed an AUC for Dapp of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.98). For FROC derived parameters, AUC was 0.75 (0.60-0.89) for DFROC, 0.59 (0.43-0.75) for βFROC and 0.59 (0.42-0.77) for μFROC. Comparison of the AUC curves revealed a significantly higher AUC of Dapp compared to the FROC parameters DFROC (p = 0.009), βFROC (p = 0.003) and μFROC (p = 0.001).

conclusionIn contrast to recent description in brain tumors, the apparent diffusion coefficient Dapp showed a significantly higher AUC than the recently proposed FROC parameters βFROC, DFROC and μFROC for differentiating between malignant and benign breast lesions. This might be related to the intrinsic high heterogeneity within breast tissue or to the lower maximal b-value used in our study.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMass ScreeningBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTumor Burden

Identifiers

PMID28453516
PMCPMC5409173

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.