Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29620604›Full record

ArticleInvestigative radiology2018

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging With Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Mapping for Breast Cancer Detection as a Stand-Alone Parameter: Comparison With Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Katja Pinker, Linda Moy, Elizabeth J Sutton, Ritse M Mann, Michael Weber, Sunitha B Thakur, Maxine S Jochelson, Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath, Elizabeth A Morris, Pascal At Baltzer and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Applications of TFrontiers in oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A multiparametric [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Breast MRI to Screen Women With Extremely Dense Breasts.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025
    Review
  14. Breast Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging: Current Applications, Insights from Screening, and Future Directions.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Longitudinal registration of TMagnetic resonance imaging · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Non-contrast Breast MR Imaging.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2024
    Review

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Katja Pinker
Linda MoyCenter for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University of Medicine.
Elizabeth J Sutton
Ritse M MannDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Michael WeberDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sunitha B Thakur
Maxine S Jochelson
Zsuzsanna Bago-HorvathDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Elizabeth A Morris
Pascal At Baltzer
Thomas H HelbichDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USMedical University of Vienna · ATAdvanced Imaging Research (United States) · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aims of this study were to compare dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping as a stand-alone parameter without any other supportive sequence for breast cancer detection and to assess its combination as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the breast. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this institutional review board-approved single-center study, prospectively acquired data of 106 patients who underwent breast MRI from 12/2010 to 09/2014 for an imaging abnormality (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0, 4/5) were retrospectively analyzed. Four readers independently assessed DWI and DCE as well as combined as mpMRI. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories, lesion size, and mean apparent diffusion coefficient values were recorded. Histopathology was used as the gold standard. Appropriate statistical tests were used to compare diagnostic values.

resultsThere were 69 malignant and 41 benign tumors in 106 patients. Four patients presented with bilateral lesions. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI was the most sensitive test for breast cancer detection, with an average sensitivity of 100%. Diffusion-weighted imaging alone was less sensitive (82%; P < 0.001) but more specific than DCE-MRI (86.8% vs 76.6%; P = 0.002). Diagnostic accuracy was 83.7% for DWI and 90.6% for DCE-MRI. Multiparametric MRI achieved a sensitivity of 96.8%, not statistically different from DCE-MRI (P = 0.12) and with a similar specificity as DWI (83.8%; P = 0.195), maximizing diagnostic accuracy to 91.9%. There was almost perfect interreader agreement for DWI (κ = 0.864) and DCE-MRI (κ = 0.875) for differentiation of benign and malignant lesions.

conclusionDynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is most sensitive for breast cancer detection and thus still indispensable. Multiparametric MRI using DCE-MRI and DWI maintains a high sensitivity, increases specificity, and maximizes diagnostic accuracy, often preventing unnecessary breast biopsies. Diffusion-weighted imaging should not be used as a stand-alone parameter because it detects significantly fewer cancers in comparison with DCE-MRI and mpMRI.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreastBreast NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansImage EnhancementMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID29620604
PMCPMC6123254
OpenAlexW2796198656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.