ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Preoperative Staging in Breast Cancer: Intraindividual Comparison of Unenhanced MRI Combined With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of breast cancer lesions using APT weighted MRI: a systematic review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Concordance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Measured Tumor Size with the Pathological Gold Standard: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis by Molecular Subtype and Breast Density.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Role of Synthetic MRI and Radiomics in Breast Cancer: A Review.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Review
- FastMRI Breast: A Publicly Available Radial k-Space Dataset of Breast Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- The role of gadolinium-based contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging structured reporting and data systems (RADS).Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- Pregnancy-Associated Breast Cancer: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Radiologic-pathologic correlation in breast cancer: do MRI biomarkers correlate with pathologic features and molecular subtypes?European radiology experimental · 2022Article
- Contrast-free MRI quantitative parameters for early prediction of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.European radiology · 2022Article
- The value of noncontrast MRI in evaluating breast imaging reporting and data system category 0 lesions on digital mammograms.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Review
- Special Issue "Advances in Breast MRI".Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy in lesion detection and size assessment of Unenhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging combined with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (UE-MRI+DBT) and Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI), in women with known breast cancer.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 84 patients with histological diagnosis of breast cancer, who underwent MRI on a 3T scanner and DBT over 2018-2019, in our Institution. Two radiologists, with 15 and 7 years of experience in breast imaging respectively, reviewed DCE-MRI and UE-MRI (including DWI and T2-w) + DBT images in separate reading sections, unaware of the final histological examination. DCE-MRI and UE-MRI+DBT sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were calculated, using histology as the gold standard. Spearman correlation and regression analyses were performed to evaluate lesion size agreement between DCE-MRI
results109 lesions were confirmed on histological examination. DCE-MRI showed high sensitivity (100% Reader 1, 98% Reader 2), good PPV (89% Reader 1, 90% Reader 2) and accuracy (90% for both readers). UE-MRI+DBT showed 97% sensitivity, 91% PPV and 92% accuracy, for both readers. Lesion size Spearman coefficient were 0.94 (Reader 1) and 0.91 (Reader 2) for DCE-MRI
conclusionsDCE-MRI was the most sensitive imaging technique in breast cancer preoperative staging. However, UE-MRI+DBT demonstrated good sensitivity and accuracy in lesion detection and tumor size assessment. Thus, UE-MRI could be a valid alternative when patients have already performed DBT.
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.