ArticleScientific reports2021
DCE-MRI of esophageal carcinoma using star-VIBE compared with conventional 3D-VIBE.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of liver T1 estimates generated by breath-hold 3D FSPGR and free-breathing 3D radial stack-of-stars FSPGR variable flip angle T1 mapping sequences.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Advancing Esophageal Cancer Staging and Restaging: The Role of MRI in Precision Diagnosis.Cancers · 2025Review
- A signal model for fat-suppressed TNMR in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Free-breathing 3D Stack-of-Stars Gradient Echo Sequence in MR-guided Percutaneous Liver Interventions: Evaluation of Workflow and Diagnostic Quality.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in early prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the value of the star-VIBE sequence in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of esophageal carcinoma under free breathing conditions. From February 2019 to June 2020, 60 patients with esophageal carcinoma were prospectively enrolled to undergo dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) with the K-space golden-angle radial stack-of-star acquisition scheme (star-VIBE) sequence (Group A) or conventional 3D volumetric-interpolated breath-hold examination (3D-VIBE) sequence (Group B), completely randomized grouping. The image quality of DCE-MRI was subjectively evaluated at five levels and objectively evaluated according to the image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-noise ratio (CNR). The DCE-MRI parameters of volume transfer constant (Ktrans), rate constant (Kep) and vascular extracellular volume fraction (Ve) were calculated using the standard Tofts double-compartment model in the post-perfusion treatment software TISSUE 4D (Siemens). Each group included 30 randomly selected cases. There was a significant difference in subjective classification between the groups (35.90 vs 25.10, p = 0.009). The study showed that both the SNR and CNR of group A were significantly higher than those of group B (p = 0.004 and < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in Ktrans, Kep or Ve between the groups (all p > 0.05). The star-VIBE sequence can be applied in DCE-MRI examination of esophageal carcinoma, which can provide higher image quality than the conventional 3D-VIBE sequence in the free breathing state.
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.