ArticleJournal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics2022
Abbreviated MRI for Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer: is Maximal Intensity Projection (MIP) of the First Post Contrast Acquisition Subtracted (Fast) Sequence Sufficient for Disease Evaluation?
Article in Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abbreviated MRI Protocols in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Abbreviated and Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI (AMRI) using the maximal intensity projection (MIP) reconstruction of the first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) compared with MIP+FAST and full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) for the preoperative assessment of breast cancer (BC) in a biopsy-proven cancer population. Methods: In this monocentric retrospective study, two readers consensually assessed two AMRI protocols consisting of MIP reconstruction of the FAST (MIP) and MIP+FAST. 228 patients were included with a breast MRI performed between 2013 and 2014, 207 of them (90.8%) had biopsy-proven cancer with 256 lesions. Data of MIP and MIP+FAST were compared to full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) reading and to the reference standard including 6-month follow-up imaging and pathology as the reference. Results: MIP, MIP+FAST and fpMRI demonstrated a per-lesion sensitivity for BC detection of 87.5% (224/256, 95%CI: 82.9-91.3%) and 97.7% (250/256, 95-99.1%) and 98.4% (252/256, 96.1-99.6%), respectively with a statistical difference between MIP compared to MIP+FAST and fpMRI when considering confidence intervals. Per-lesion specificity was not different [MIP: 47.6% (10/21, 25.7-70.2%), MIP+FAST: 52.4% (11/21,29.8-74.3%, fpMRI: 66.7% (14/21, 43-85.4%)]. Conclusion: AMRI using only MIP is not accurate for the pre-operative assessment of BC due to lower sensitivity when compared to MIP+FAST and fpMRI. AMRI using the MIP+FAST acquisition in the preoperative setting seems promising as it could be used as the same protocol for both screening and staging in case of positive cases, without need for a recall fpMRI. This needs confirmation with cohort including higher rate of negative cases in order to evaluate the specificity.
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.