ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
A comparative study of mono-exponential and advanced diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating stage IA endometrial carcinoma from benign endometrial lesions.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2024. 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.
- ZOOMit diffusion kurtosis imaging combined with diffusion weighted imaging for the assessment of microsatellite instability in endometrial cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Analysis of ultrasonic imaging changes and factors related to malignant transformation in postmenopausal patients with endometrial polyps.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
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
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the current investigation is to compare the efficacy of different diffusion models and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in differentiating stage IA endometrial carcinoma (IAEC) from benign endometrial lesions (BELs).
methodsPatients with IAEC, endometrial hyperplasia (EH), or a thickened endometrium confirmed between May 2016 and August 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. All of the patients underwent a preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from the mono-exponential model, pure diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) from the bi-exponential model, distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC), water molecular diffusion heterogeneity index from the stretched-exponential model, diffusion coefficient (Dk) and diffusion kurtosis (K) from the DKI model were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency.
resultsA total of 90 patients with IAEC and 91 patients with BELs were enrolled. The values of ADC, D, DDC and Dk were significantly lower and D* and K were significantly higher in cases of IAEC (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that K was the only predictor. The area under the ROC curve of K was 0.864, significantly higher compared with the ADC (0.601), D (0.811), D* (0.638), DDC (0.743) and Dk (0.675). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of K were 78.89%, 85.71% and 80.66%, respectively.
conclusionAdvanced diffusion-weighted imaging models have good performance for differentiating IAEC from EH and endometrial thickening. Among all of the diffusion parameters, K showed the best performance and was the only independent predictor. Diffusion kurtosis imaging was defined as the most valuable model in the current context.
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.