Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33317609›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2020

The diagnostic performance of quantitative mapping in breast cancer patients: a preliminary study using synthetic MRI.

Tiebao Meng, Ni He, Haoqiang He, Kuiyuan Liu, Liangru Ke, Huiming Liu, Linchang Zhong, Chenghui Huang, Anli Yang, Chunyan Zhou and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Quantitative MR Imaging of the Breast.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Tiebao MengDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Ni HeDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Haoqiang HeDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Kuiyuan LiuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, China.
Liangru KeDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Huiming LiuDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Linchang ZhongDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Chenghui HuangDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Anli YangDepartment of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Chunyan ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Long QianCenter for MRI Research, Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China.
Chuanmiao XieDepartment of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China. xchuanm@sysucc.org.cn.

Funding

Medical Science Research Foundation of Guangdong Province of China 20180005National Key Research and Development Program of China 2017YFC0112605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have indicated that quantitative MRI (qMR) is beneficial for diagnosis of breast cancer. As a novel qMR technology, synthetic MRI (syMRI) may be advantageous by offering simultaneous generation of T1 and T2 mapping in one scan within a few minutes and without concern to the deposition of the gadolinium contrast agent in cell nucleus. In this study, the potential of quantitative mapping derived from Synthetic MRI (SyMRI) to diagnose breast cancer was investigated.

methodsFrom April 2018 to May 2019, a total of 87 patients with suspicious breast lesions underwent both conventional and SyMRI before treatment. The quantitative metrics derived from SyMRI, including T1 and T2 values, were measured in breast lesions. The diagnostic performance of SyMRI was evaluated with unpaired Student's t-tests, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The AUCs of quantitative values were compared using Delong test.

resultsAmong 77 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 48 were diagnosed with histopathological confirmed breast cancers, and the rest had benign lesions. The breast cancers showed significantly higher T1 (1611.61 ± 215.88 ms) values and lower T2 (80.93 ± 7.51 ms) values than benign lesions. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) values were 0.931 (95% CI: 0.874-0.989) and 0.883 (95% CI: 0.810-0.956) for T1 and T2 maps, respectively, in diagnostic discrimination between breast cancers and benign lesions. A slightly increased AUC of 0.978 (95% CI: 0.915-0.993) was achieved by combining those two relaxation-based quantitative metrics.

conclusionIn conclusion, our preliminary study showed that the quantitative T1 and T2 values obtained by SyMRI could distinguish effectively between benign and malignant breast lesions, and T1 relaxation time showed the highest diagnostic efficiency. Furthermore, combining the two quantitative relaxation metrics further improved their diagnostic performance.

Indexed as

AdultAgedArea Under CurveBreastBreast NeoplasmsContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleFibrocystic Breast DiseaseHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRegression AnalysisROC CurveContrast MediaBreast cancerSynthetic MRIT1 mappingT2 mapping

Identifiers

PMID33317609
PMCPMC7737277

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.