Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34017683›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Preoperative Staging in Breast Cancer: Intraindividual Comparison of Unenhanced MRI Combined With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI.

Veronica Rizzo, Giuliana Moffa, Endi Kripa, Claudia Caramanico, Federica Pediconi, Francesca Galati

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Special Issue "Advances in Breast MRI".Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Veronica RizzoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giuliana MoffaDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Endi KripaDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Claudia CaramanicoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesca GalatiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

breast cancerdiffusion weighed imagingdigital breast tomosynthesispreoperative stagingunenhanced protocol

Identifiers

PMID34017683
PMCPMC8130555
OpenAlexW3158994942

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.