ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Diffusion-weighted imaging or dynamic contrast-enhanced curve: a retrospective analysis of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnoses of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of dynamic contrast enhancement and diffusion-weighted MRI for differentiation of benign from malignant non-mass enhancement breast lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: Differentiation Using Microstructural Metrics Derived from Time-Dependent Diffusion MRI.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Trial
- Advancing breast cancer diagnosis: a combined approach using deep learning-reconstructed diffusion-weighted imaging and Synthetic MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- A Signature of Typical MRI Features and Time-Intensity Curve Achieves Accurate Diagnosis of Distensible Orbital Venous Malformation.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Dynamic Contrast Enhancement and Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Non-Mass Enhancement Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Multimodal magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and its correlation with the differentiation process of cervical cancer.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Can DWI provide additional value to Kaiser score in evaluation of breast lesions.European radiology · 2022Article
- Additive value of texture analysis based on breast MRI for distinguishing between benign and malignant non-mass enhancement in premenopausal women.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Correlations between preoperative diffusion tensor imaging and surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Article
- Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy Between Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and DCE-MRI for Mass- and Non-Mass-Like Enhancement Types in Breast Lesions.Cancer management and research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of models based on a combination of contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) or time-intensity curves (TIC) in diagnosing malignancies of breast lesions.
methodsA double-blind retrospective study was conducted in 328 patients (254 for training and the following 74 for validation) who underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the breast with pathological results. Two score models, the DWI model (apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) + morphology + enhanced information) and the TIC model (TIC + morphology + enhanced information), were established with binary logistic regression for mass and non-mass enhancements (NMEs) in the training set. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were compared between the two models (DWI model vs. TIC model); p < 0.05 was considered as statistically different. External validation was used.
resultsIn the training set, the sensitivities, specificities, and AUCs of the DWI/TIC model were 95.2%/95.8%, 70.8%/47.9%, and 0.932/0.891 for masses, and 94.2%/90.4%, 47.4%/47.4%, and 0.798 (95% CI, 0.686-0.884)/0.802 (95% CI, 0.691-0.887) for NMEs, respectively. The AUC of the DWI model was significantly higher than that of the TIC model (p < 0.05) for masses. In the validation set, the AUCs of the DWI/TIC model were 0.896/0.861 for masses (p < 0.05) and 0.936/0.836 for NMEs (p > 0.05).
conclusionsCombined with CE MRI, the DWI model was superior or equal to the TIC model in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions. KEY POINTS: • Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging played an important role in the diagnosis of breast neoplasms. • On the basis of contrast-enhanced MRI, the DWI model had significantly higher diagnostic ability than the TIC model in distinguishing benign and malignant masses. • It would be reasonable to replace the time-consuming TIC with DWI for less scan time and similar diagnostic efficiency.
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.