Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33185840›Full record

ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2021

Non-invasive Differentiation of Endometrial Adenocarcinoma from Benign Lesions in the Uterus by Utilization of Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted MRI.

Yuan Li, Cheng-Yu Lin, Ya-Fei Qi, Xiao-Qi Wang, Bo Chen, Hai-Long Zhou, Jing Ren, Jun-Jun Yang, Yang Xiang, Yong-Lan He and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yuan Li *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Cheng-Yu Lin *Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China.
Ya-Fei QiDepartment of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China.
Xiao-Qi WangPhilips Healthcare China, Suzhou, People's Republic of China.
Bo ChenDepartment of Pathology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hai-Long ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China.
Jing RenDepartment of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China.
Jun-Jun YangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yang XiangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yong-Lan HeDepartment of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China. ylhe_526@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2567-9710
Hua-Dan XueDepartment of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China. bjdanna95@hotmail.com.
Zheng-Yu JinDepartment of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China. jin_zhengyu@163.com.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPhilips (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the utility of three-dimensional (3D) amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) imaging for differentiation of endometrial adenocarcinoma and uterine benign lesions. PROCEDURES: This prospective study enrolled 22 normal volunteers and 113 patients with suspicious uterine lesions, including endometrial adenocarcinoma, leiomyoma, and adenomyosis. Pelvic APTw MRI was performed on a 3-T MRI scanner with default APTw parameters. Two radiologists blindly evaluated uterine lesion APTw image quality by a 3-point Likert scale and independently measured APTw values on images with excellent to good image quality. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated. The Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction was used to compare the differences among different types of uterine lesions. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed.

resultsA total of 111 lesions (33 endometrial adenocarcinoma, 26 leiomyoma, and 52 adenomyosis lesions) from 99 patients revealing a majority of good quality with excellent inter-reader agreement were included for the image quality evaluation. APTw values of endometrial adenocarcinoma were 2.9 ± 0.1 %, significantly higher than those of leiomyoma (1.9 ± 0.1 %), adenomyosis (2.2 ± 0.1 %), and normal uterine myometrium (1.9 ± 0.1 %) (all p < 0.0001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for differentiating endometrial adenocarcinoma from leiomyoma, adenomyosis, and myometrium was 0.87, 0.85, and 0.91, respectively. Feasible threshold APTw values of each group were determined as 2.4 %, 2.7 %, and 2.4 % with a sensitivity of 83.3 %, 76.7 %, and 83.3 % and a specificity of 83.3 %, 81.6 %, and 86.4 %, respectively.

conclusionsMalignant endometrial adenocarcinoma had significantly higher APTw values than leiomyoma, adenomyosis, and normal uterine myometrium. Our study adds to the growing body of validation on 3D APTw imaging and uterine lesions.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdenomyosisAdultAgedAmidesEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalLeiomyomaMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProtonsROC CurveAmidesProtonsMagnetic resonance imaging,∙Amide∙protons,∙Uterine neoplasms,∙Adenomyosis

Identifiers

PMID33185840
OpenAlexW3102663520

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.