ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2022
Impact of Alternate
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01564368 (Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging Biomarkers for Assessment of Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging Biomarkers for Assessment of Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment: A Sub-study of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL (Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response With Imaging And MoLecular Analysis)
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of co-registration on lesion characterization in diffusion-weighted breast MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Evaluating Breast Cancer Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MRI Biomarkers across Software Platforms.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Early radiologic tumour volume response in non-metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma is not predictive for survival.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- Radiomics-based Machine Learning Prediction of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Breast Cancer Using Physiologically Decomposed Diffusion-weighted MRI.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Quantitative [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of daily 0.35 T diffusion-weighted MRI for MRI-guided glioblastoma radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Diffusion weighted imaging for improving the diagnostic performance of screening breast MRI: impact of apparent diffusion coefficient quantitation methods and cutoffs.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
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
Abstract
In diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), choice of b-value influences apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values by probing different aspects of the tissue microenvironment. As a secondary analysis of the multicenter ECOG-ACRIN A6698 trial, the purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of alternate b-value combinations on the performance and repeatability of tumor ADC as a predictive marker of breast cancer treatment response. The final analysis included 210 women who underwent standardized 4-b-value DW-MRI (b = 0/100/600/800 s/mm2) at multiple timepoints during neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment and a subset (n = 71) who underwent test−retest scans. Centralized tumor ADC and perfusion fraction (fp) measures were performed using variable b-value combinations. Prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR) based on the mid-treatment/12-week percent change in each metric was estimated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Repeatability was estimated by within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV). Results show that two-b-value ADC calculations provided non-inferior predictive value to four-b-value ADC calculations overall (AUCs = 0.60−0.61 versus AUC = 0.60) and for HR+/HER2− cancers where ADC was most predictive (AUCs = 0.75−0.78 versus AUC = 0.76), p < 0.05. Using two b-values (0/600 or 0/800 s/mm2) did not reduce ADC repeatability over the four-b-value calculation (wCVs = 4.9−5.2% versus 5.4%). The alternate metrics ADCfast (b ≤ 100 s/mm2), ADCslow (b ≥ 100 s/mm2), and fp did not improve predictive performance (AUCs = 0.54−0.60, p = 0.08−0.81), and ADCfast and fp demonstrated the lowest repeatability (wCVs = 6.71% and 12.4%, respectively). In conclusion, breast tumor ADC calculated using a simple two-b-value approach can provide comparable predictive value and repeatability to full four-b-value measurements as a marker of treatment response.
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.