Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36600192›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2023

Study of T2 mapping in quantifying and discriminating uterine lesions under different magnetic field strengths: 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T.

Liuhong Zhu, Weihong Lu, Funan Wang, Yanwei Wang, Pu-Yeh Wu, Jianjun Zhou, Hao Liu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Liuhong Zhu *Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital (Xiamen), Fudan University, Jihun Road No. 668, Huli District, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Weihong Lu *Department of Gynaecology Department, Zhongshan Hospital (Xiamen), Fudan University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Funan WangDepartment of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital (Xiamen), Fudan University, Jihun Road No. 668, Huli District, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Yanwei WangDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen Medical College, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Pu-Yeh WuGE Healthcare, Beijing, China.
Jianjun ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital (Xiamen), Fudan University, Jihun Road No. 668, Huli District, Xiamen, Fujian, China. zsxmfskz@163.com.
Hao LiuDepartment of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Xuhui District, Fenglin Road No.180, Shanghai, 200032, China. liuhaozsxm@163.com.
Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University · CNFudan University · CNThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen Medical College

Funding

Fujian Natural Science Foundation Projects Grand 2022J011425Science and Technology Guided Project of Fujian Province Grand 2019D025Xiamen Municipal Bureau of Science and Technology 3502Z20199040Xiamen Municipal Bureau of Science and Technology 3502Z20214ZD1087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMRI is the best imaging tool for the evaluation of uterine tumors, but conventional MRI diagnosis results rely on radiologists and contrast agents (if needed). As a new objective, reproducible and contrast-agent free quantification technique, T2 mapping has been applied to a number of diseases, but studies on the evaluation of uterine lesions and the influence of magnetic field strength are few. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically investigate and compare the performance of T2 mapping as a nonenhanced imaging tool in discriminating common uterine lesions between 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI systems.

methodsA total of 50 healthy subjects and 126 patients with suspected uterine lesions were enrolled in our study, and routine uterine MRI sequences with additional T2 mapping sequences were performed. T2 maps were calculated by monoexponential fitting using a custom code in MATLAB. T2 values of normal uterine structures in the healthy group and lesions (benign: adenomyosis, myoma, endometrial polyps; malignant: cervical cancer, endometrial carcinoma) in the patient group were collected. The differences in T2 values between 1.5 T MRI and 3.0 T MRI in any normal structure or lesion were compared. The comparison of T2 values between benign and malignant lesions was also performed under each magnetic field strength, and the diagnostic efficacies of the T2 value obtained through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were compared between 1.5 T and 3.0 T.

resultsThe mean T2 value of any normal uterine structure or uterine lesion under 3.0 T MRI was significantly lower than that under 1.5 T MRI (p < 0.05). There were significant differences in T2 values between each lesion subgroup under both 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI. Moreover, the T2 values of benign lesions (71.1 ± 22.0 ms at 1.5 T and 63.4 ± 19.1 ms at 3.0 T) were also significantly lower than those of malignant lesions (101.1 ± 4.5 ms at 1.5 T and 93.5 ± 5.1 ms at 3.0 T) under both field strengths. In the aspect of differentiating benign from malignant lesions, the area under the curve of the T2 value under 3.0 T (0.94) was significantly higher than that under 1.5 T MRI (0.90) (p = 0.02).

conclusionT2 mapping can be a potential tool for quantifying common uterine lesions, and it has better performance in distinguishing benign from malignant lesions under 3.0 T MRI.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingUterine NeoplasmsContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansMagnetic FieldsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityUterusContrast MediaAdenomyosisCervical cancerEndometrial cancerT2 mappingTransverse relaxation time

Identifiers

PMID36600192
PMCPMC9811773
OpenAlexW4313546506

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.