Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35083595›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2022

Breast MRI in patients after breast conserving surgery with sentinel node procedure using a superparamagnetic tracer.

Anke Christenhusz, Joost J Pouw, Frank F J Simonis, Michael Douek, Muneer Ahmed, Joost M Klaase, Anneriet E Dassen, Caroline A H Klazen, Margreet C van der Schaaf, Bernard Ten Haken and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anke ChristenhuszMagnetic Detection & Imaging group, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. a.christenhusz@utwente.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0624-7875
Joost J PouwMagnetic Detection & Imaging group, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Frank F J SimonisMagnetic Detection & Imaging group, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Michael DouekNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Muneer AhmedDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Joost M KlaaseDepartment of Surgery Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Anneriet E DassenDepartment of Surgery Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Caroline A H KlazenDepartment of Radiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Margreet C van der SchaafDepartment of Radiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Bernard Ten HakenMagnetic Detection & Imaging group, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Lejla AlicMagnetic Detection & Imaging group, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Medisch Spectrum Twente · NLUniversity of Twente · NLThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA procedure for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using superparamagnetic iron-oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles and intraoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection was developed to overcome drawbacks associated with the current standard-of-care SLNB. However, residual SPIO nanoparticles can result in void artefacts at follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. We present a grading protocol to quantitatively assess the severity of these artefacts and offer an option to minimise the impact of SPIO nanoparticles on diagnostic imaging.

methodsFollow-up mammography and MRI of two patient groups after a magnetic SLNB were included in the study. They received a 2-mL subareolar dose of SPIO (high-dose, HD) or a 0.1-mL intratumoural dose of SPIO (low-dose, LD). Follow-up mammography and MRI after magnetic SLNB were acquired within 4 years after breast conserving surgery (BCS). Two radiologists with over 10-year experience in breast imaging assessed the images and analysed the void artefacts and their impact on diagnostic follow-up.

resultsA total of 19 patients were included (HD, n = 13; LD, n = 6). In the HD group, 9/13 patients displayed an artefact on T1-weighted images up to 3.6 years after the procedure, while no impact of the SPIO remnants was observed in the LD group.

conclusionsSLNB using a 2-mL subareolar dose of magnetic tracer in patients undergoing BCS resulted in residual artefacts in the breast in the majority of patients, which may hamper follow-up MRI. This can be avoided by using a 0.1-mL intratumoural dose.

Indexed as

Sentinel Lymph NodeBreastHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMastectomy, SegmentalSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyArtefactsBreast cancerMagnetic resonance imagingSentinel lymph node biopsySuperparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles

Identifiers

PMID35083595
PMCPMC8792114
OpenAlexW4210274242

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.