ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2018
Characterizing and eliminating errors in enhancement and subtraction artifacts in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: Chemical shift artifact of the third kind.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Background parenchymal enhancement in pregnancy-associated breast cancer: a hindrance to diagnosis?European radiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo characterize errors in enhancement in breast dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI studies as a function of echo time and determine the source of dark band artifacts in clinical subtraction images.
methodsComputer simulations, oil and water substitute (methylene chloride), as well as an American College of Radiology quality control phantom were tested. Routine clinical DCE breast MRI study was bracketed with (accelerated) in-phase DCE acquisitions in five patients.
resultsSimulation results demonstrated up to -160% suppression of the expected enhancement caused by differential enhancement of fat and water. Two-dimensional gradient-recalled echo and fat-suppressed 3D GRE phantom imaging confirmed the simulation results and showed that fat suppression does not eliminate the artifact. In vivo in-phase DCE images showed increased enhancement consistent with predictions and also confirmed increased spatial blurring on in-phase 3D gradient-recalled echo images. Combined multi-dimensional partial Fourier and parallel imaging provided a time-equivalent in-phase DCE MRI acquisition.
conclusionErrors in expected enhancement occur in DCE breast MRI subtraction images because of differential enhancement of fat and water and incomplete fat signal suppression. These errors can lead to artificial suppression of enhancement as well as dark band artifacts on subtraction images. These artifacts can be eliminated with a time-equivalent in-phase fat-suppressed 3D gradient-recalled echo sequence. Understanding chemical shift artifact of the third kind, a unique artifact of artificial enhancement suppression in the presence of intravoxel fat and water signal, will aid DCE breast MRI image interpretation. In-phase acquisitions (combined with simultaneous minimum echo time or opposed-phase echoes) may facilitate qualitative, quantitative and longitudinal analysis of contrast enhancement. Magn Reson Med 79:2277-2289, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
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.