ArticlePloS one2021
Diffusion weighted imaging of the breast: Performance of standardized breast tumor tissue selection methods in clinical decision making.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn breast diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) protocol standardization, it is recently shown that no breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) method outperformed the others. The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility of three fixed-size breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) methods based on the reproducibility, accuracy and time-measurement in comparison to the largest oval and manual delineation in breast diffusion weighted imaging data.
methodsThis study is performed with a consecutive dataset of 116 breast lesions (98 malignant) of at least 1.0 cm, scanned in accordance with the EUSOBI breast DWI working group recommendations. Reproducibility of the maximum size manual (BTTS1) and of the maximal size round/oval (BTTS2) methods were compared with three smaller fixed-size circular BTTS methods in the middle of each lesion (BTTS3, 0.12 cm3 volume) and at lowest apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (BTTS4, 0.12 cm3; BTTS5, 0.24 cm3). Mean ADC values, intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICCs), area under the curve (AUC) and measurement times (sec) of the 5 BTTS methods were assessed by two observers.
resultsExcellent inter- and intra-observer agreement was found for any BTTS (with ICC 0.88-0.92 and 0.92-0.94, respectively). Significant difference in ADCmean between any pair of BTTS methods was shown (p = <0.001-0.009), except for BTTS2 vs. BTTS3 for observer 1 (p = 0.10). AUCs were comparable between BTTS methods, with highest AUC for BTTS2 (0.89-0.91) and lowest for BTTS4 (0.76-0.85). However, as an indicator of clinical feasibility, BTTS2-3 showed shortest measurement times (10-15 sec) compared to BTTS1, 4-5 (19-39 sec).
conclusionThe performance of fixed-size BTTS methods, as a potential tool for clinical decision making, shows equal AUC but shorter ADC measurement time compared to manual or oval whole lesion measurements. The advantage of a fixed size BTTS method is the excellent reproducibility. A central fixed breast tumor tissue volume of 0.12 cm3 is the most feasible method for use in clinical practice.
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.