ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2023
Contrasts Between Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR in Diagnosing Malignancies of Breast Nonmass Enhancement Lesions Based on Morphologic Assessment.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Additional diagnostic value of lesion visibility on diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating BI-RADS category 4 MRI-detected breast lesions.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Segmental Non-Mass Enhancement Features in Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Multicenter Retrospective Study of Histopathologic Correlations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Histogram analysis of relaxometry from synthetic MRI for differentiation of breast BI-RADS 4 non-mass enhancement lesions.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- DWI in the Differentiation of Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions Presenting with Non-Mass Enhancement on CE-MRI.Cancers · 2024Article
- Update on DWI for Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Monitoring.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Review
- Editorial for "Contrasts Between Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR in Diagnosing Malignancies of Breast Nonmass Enhancement Lesions Based on Morphologic Assessment".Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonmass enhancement (NME) breast lesions are considered to be the leading cause of unnecessary biopsies. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) or dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequences are typically used to differentiate between benign and malignant NMEs. It is important to know which one is more effective and reliable. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of DCE curves and DWI in discriminating benign and malignant NME lesions on the basis of morphologic characteristics assessment on contrast-enhanced (CE)-MRI images. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: A total of 180 patients with 184 lesions in the training cohort and 75 patients with 77 lesions in the validation cohort with pathological results. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3.0 T/multi-b-value DWI (b values = 0, 50, 1000, and 2000 sec/mm ASSESSMENT: In the training cohort, a diagnostic model for morphology based on the distribution and internal enhancement characteristics was first constructed. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) model (ADC + morphology) and the time-intensity curves (TIC) model (TIC + morphology) were then established using binary logistic regression with pathological results as the reference standard. Both models were compared for sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) in the training and the validation cohort. STATISTICAL TESTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and two-sample t-tests/Mann-Whitney U-test/Chi-square test were performed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsFor the TIC/ADC model in the training cohort, sensitivities were 0.924/0.814, specificities were 0.615/0.615, and AUCs were 0.811 (95%, 0.727, 0.894)/0.769 (95%, 0.681, 0.856). The AUC of the TIC-ADC combined model was significantly higher than ADC model alone, while comparable with the TIC model (P = 0.494). In the validation cohort, the AUCs of TIC/ADC model were 0.799/0.635. DATA
conclusionBased on the morphologic analyses, the performance of the TIC model was found to be superior than the ADC model for differentiating between benign and malignant NME lesions. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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.