ArticleCancers2022
Diagnostic and Practical Value of Abbreviated Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Diagnostics.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic efficacy of abbreviated and full protocol breast MRI: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough MRI is the most efficient method of detecting breast cancer, its standard protocol is time-consuming and expensive. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the modified innovative abbreviated MRI protocol (AMRP) and the standard magnetic resonance protocol (SMRP) when detecting breast cancer.
methodsThe research involved 477 patients referred for breast MRI due to suspected lesions. They were randomly assigned to the AMRP group (N = 232) or the SMRP group (N = 245). The AMRP comprised one native (contrast-free) and four post-contrast dynamic sequences of T1-weighted volume imaging for breast assessment (VIBRANT) and 3d MIP (maximum intensity projection) lasting for eight minutes. All the patients underwent a core biopsy of their lesions and histopathological analysis.
resultsThe groups were comparable regarding the pre-screening and post-diagnostic characteristics and were of average (±SD) age at breast cancer diagnosis of 53.6 ± 12.7 years. There was no significant difference between the two protocols in terms of specificity or sensitivity of breast cancer diagnosis. The sensitivity (95% Cis) of the AMRP was 99.05% (96.6-99.9%), and its specificity was 59.09% (36.4-79.3%), whereas the sensitivity of the SMRP was 98.12% (95.3-99.5%) and its specificity was 68.75% (50.0-83.9%). Most of the tumors comprised one solid lesion in one of the breasts (77.3%), followed by multicentric tumors (16%), bilateral tumors (4.3%), and multifocal tumors (1.7%). The average size of tumors was approximately 14 mm (ranging from 3 mm to 72 mm).
conclusionOur innovative AMR protocol showed comparable specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis of breast cancer when compared to SMRP, which is the "gold standard" for histopathological diagnosis. This can lead to great savings in terms of the time and cost of imaging and interpretation.
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.