ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2022
Feasibility study of 2D Dixon-Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) of breast cancer.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) on the diffusion weightings of breast lesions: an intra-patient analysis.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Application of MRF to evaluate the feasibility of 2D Dixon blurring-corrected MRF (2DDb-cMRF) to differentiate breast cancer (BC) from normal fibroglandular tissue (FGT). Methods: Prospective study on 14 patients with unilateral BC on 1.5 T system/axial T2w-TSE sequence, 2DDb-cMRF, B1 map, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) T1-w GE-series. Mean T1 and T2 values and standard deviations were computed in the BC-/FGT-ROI on pre-/post-contrast MRF-maps and their differences were tested by two-tailed student t-test.Accuracy and repeatability of MRF were evaluated in a phantom experiment with gelatin with Primovist surrounded by fat.The T1 reduction between pre-/post-contrast MRF-maps was correlated to DCE signal enhancement in the last image post-contrast through the Pearson´s correlation coefficient (r) and for the phantom validation experiment through the Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).Visual evaluation of cancers on MRF-Maps was performed by rating each MRF-Map by 3 radiologists. Results: T1- and T2-MRF values of BC vs. FGT were for T1 and T2 pre-contrast respectively: 1147 ± 1 ms vs. 1052 ± 9 ms (p = 0.007) and 83 ± 1 ms vs. 73 ± 1 ms (p = 0.03); post-contrast respectively: 367.3 ± 121.5 ms vs. 690.3 ± 200.3 ms (p = 0.0005) and 76.9 ± 11.5 ms vs. 69.8 ± 15.2 ms (p = 0.12). r was positive (FGT r = 0.7; BC r = 0.6). CCC was 0.999 for T1 and 0.994 for T2. In the T1- and T2-MRF-Maps before contrast respectively (7,7,8)/14 and (5,9,8)/14 cancers were visible to the readers; afterwards, (11,12,12)/14 and (5,6,11)/14. Conclusions: MRF is promising for distinction between BC and FGT as well as for analyzing pre-/post-contrast T1 changes. However, its potential for differential diagnosis warrants further studies.
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.