Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35387418›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Response Evaluation After Single-Dose Ablative Neoadjuvant Partial Breast Irradiation.

Jeanine E Vasmel, Maureen L Groot Koerkamp, Stefano Mandija, Wouter B Veldhuis, Maaike R Moman, Martijn Froeling, Bas H M van der Velden, Ramona K Charaghvandi, Celien P H Vreuls, Paul J van Diest and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. 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

18 authors.

Jeanine E VasmelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Maureen L Groot KoerkampDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Stefano MandijaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Wouter B VeldhuisDepartment of Radiology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Maaike R MomanDepartment of Radiology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Martijn FroelingDepartment of Radiology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bas H M van der VeldenImage Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ramona K CharaghvandiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, RadboudUMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Celien P H VreulsDepartment of Pathology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Paul J van DiestDepartment of Pathology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
A M Gijs van LeeuwenDepartment of Pathology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Joost van GorpDepartment of Pathology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Marielle E P PhilippensDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bram van AsselenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jan J W LagendijkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenImaging Division, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
H J G Desirée van den BongardDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Antonetta C HouwelingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans acquired before and after single-dose ablative neoadjuvant partial breast irradiation (NA-PBI), and explore the relation between semiquantitative MRI parameters and radiologic and pathologic responses. Methods and Materials: We analyzed 3.0T DCE and DW-MRI of 36 patients with low-risk breast cancer who were treated with single-dose NA-PBI, followed by breast-conserving surgery 6 or 8 months later. MRI was acquired before NA-PBI and 1 week, 2, 4, and 6 months after NA-PBI. Breast radiologists assessed the radiologic response and breast pathologists scored the pathologic response after surgery. Patients were grouped as either pathologic responders or nonresponders (<10% vs ≥10% residual tumor cells). The semiquantitative MRI parameters evaluated were time to enhancement (TTE), 1-minute relative enhancement (RE Results: In general, the enhancement increased 1 week after NA-PBI (baseline vs 1 week median - TTE: 15s vs 10s; RE Conclusions: Semiquantitative analyses of DCE and DW-MRI showed changes in relative enhancement and ADC 1 week after NA-PBI, indicating acute inflammation, followed by changes indicating tumor regression from 2 to 6 months after radiation therapy. A relation between the MRI parameters and radiologic and pathologic responses could not be proven in this exploratory study.

Identifiers

PMID35387418
PMCPMC8977856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.