ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2024
Comparison of golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) and conventional cartesian sampling in 3D dynamic contrast-enhanced mri for bladder cancer: a preliminary study.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Status and Future Perspective for Bladder Cancer MR Imaging and the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) in Japan: Challenges and Solutions.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Review
- Truncated enhanced constraint for low-rank plus sparse in cardiac dynamic MRI reconstruction.Magnetic resonance letters · 2026Article
- Motion Mitigation Techniques for Abdominal and Cardiac MR Imaging.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the image quality, inter-reader agreement, and diagnostic capability for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) of the reconstructed images in sections orthogonal to the bladder tumor obtained by 3D Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI using the Golden-angle Radial Sparse Parallel (GRASP) technique with the images directly captured using the Cartesian sampling. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study involved 68 initial cases of bladder cancer examined with DCE-MRI (GRASP: n = 34, Cartesian: n = 34) at 3 Tesla. Four radiologists conducted qualitative evaluations (overall image quality, absence of motion artifact, absence of streak artifact, and tumor conspicuity) using a five-point Likert scale (5 = Excellent/None) and quantitative signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) DCE score for MIBC assessment were calculated. Inter-reader agreement was also assessed.
resultsGRASP notably enhanced overall image quality (pooled score: GRASP 4 vs. Cartesian 3, P < 0.0001), tumor conspicuity (5 vs. 3, P < 0.05), SNR (Median 38.2 vs. 19.0, P < 0.0001), and CNR (7.9 vs. 6.0, P = 0.005), with fewer motion artifacts (5 vs. 3, P < 0.0001) and minor streak artifacts (5 vs. 5, P > 0.05). Although no significant differences were observed, the GRASP group tended to have higher AUCs for MIBC (pooled AUCs: 0.92 vs. 0.88) and showed a trend toward higher inter-reader agreement (pooled kappa-value: 0.70 vs. 0.63) compared to the Cartesian group.
conclusionsUsing the GRASP for 3D DCE-MRI, the reconstructed images in sections orthogonal to the bladder tumor achieved higher image quality and improve the clinical work flow, compared to the images directly captured using the Cartesian. GRASP tended to have higher diagnostic ability for MIBC and showed a trend toward higher inter-reader agreement compared to the Cartesian.
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.