ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Fusion of high b-value diffusion-weighted and unenhanced T1-weighted images to diagnose invasive breast cancer: factors associated with false-negative results.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Added value of diffusion-weighted imaging in detecting breast cancer missed by artificial intelligence-based mammography.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a multiparametric MRI-based radiomics nomogram for the tripartite discrimination of primary benign, primary malignant, and metastatic lumbar spinal tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Prospective comparison of synthetic high b-value field of view optimized and constrained undistorted multiplexed sensitivity encoding (FOCUS-MUSE) and FOCUS diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluating cervical cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Utility of Echo-planar Imaging with Compressed Sensitivity Encoding (EPICS) in the Evaluation of Small Breast Cancers Using Diffusion-weighted Imaging with Background Suppression (DWIBS).Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Review
- Are background breast parenchymal features on preoperative breast MRI associated with disease-free survival in patients with invasive breast cancer?La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Non-contrast Breast MR Imaging.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2024Review
- Background Breast Parenchymal Signal During Menstrual Cycle on Diffusion-Weighted MRI: A Prospective Study in Healthy Premenopausal Women.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Computed diffusion-weighted imaging with a low-apparent diffusion coefficient-pixel cut-off technique for breast cancer detection.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Fused Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Using Unenhanced MRI and Abbreviated Post-Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Patients with Breast Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Characterization of Effects of Compressed Sensing on High Spectral and Spatial Resolution (HiSS) MRI with Comparison to SENSE.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Simplified intravoxel incoherent motion DWI for differentiating malignant from benign breast lesions.European radiology experimental · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe sought factors associated with false-negative results in the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer via non-contrast breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using fused high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and unenhanced T1-weighted images (T1WI).
methodsBetween 2018 and 2019, 316 consecutive women (mean age, 54.6 years) with invasive breast cancer who underwent preoperative breast MRI, including fused high b-value DWI and unenhanced T1WI, were retrospectively evaluated. Malignancy confidence ratings of the most suspicious breast lesions evident on fused DWI were derived by two radiologists using a 6-point Likert-type scale. Both clinicopathological and imaging features were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with false-negative DWI results in the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer.
resultsOf the 316 breast cancers, fused DWI yielded 289 (91.5%) true-positive and 27 (8.5%) false-negative results. Multivariate analysis showed that small tumor size (≤ 1 cm) (odds ratio [OR], 5.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.11, 16.81; p = 0.001), presence of calcifications in the tumor (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.27, 9.15; p = 0.015), and a moderate/marked background diffusion signal (ORs, 4.23 and 19.18; 95% CI, 1.31, 13.67 and 6.51, 56.46; p = 0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively) were significantly associated with false-negative results. In subgroup analysis of 141 screening-detected cancers, a marked background diffusion signal (OR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.30, 27.35; p = 0.001) remained significantly associated with false-negative results in the multivariate analysis.
conclusionsIn addition to histopathological features, a higher background diffusion signal was associated with false-negative results in the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer via non-contrast MRI using fused high b-value DWI and unenhanced T1WI. KEY POINTS: • Subcentimeter tumors and presence of calcifications in the tumor are associated with false-negative diffusion-weighted imaging results in the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. • A higher degree of background diffusion signal may lead to false-negative interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with invasive breast cancer.
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.