ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Quantification of breast biopsy clip marker artifact on routine breast MRI sequences: a phantom study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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.
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy from a multidisciplinary perspective.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Assessing breast MRI image quality: the bMRI-QUAL scoring system.European radiology · 2026Article
- Breast imaging with ultra-low field MRI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the artifact sizes of four common breast clip-markers on a standard breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol in an in vitro phantom model.
methodsUsing 1.5-T and 3-T whole-body scanners with an 18-channel breast coil, artifact dimensions of four breast biopsy markers in an agarose-gel phantom were measured by two readers on images obtained with the following sequences: T2-weighted fast spin-echo short inversion time fat-suppressed inversion-recovery with magnitude reconstruction (T2-TIRM); T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo with fat suppression (T1_FL3D), routinely used for dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging; diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), including a readout segmented echo-planar imaging (RESOLVE-DWI) and echo-planar imaging sequence (EPI-DWI). After outlining the artifacts by freehand regions of interest, sagittal and lateral diameters in axial images were measured.
resultsInterreader agreement for artifact size quantification was high, depending on the sequence (80.4-94.8%). Overall, the size, shape, and appearance of artifacts depended on clip type and MRI sequence. The artifact size ranged from 5.7 × 8.5 mm
conclusionBreast clip-marker MRI artifact appearances depend on clip type, field strength, and sequence and may reach a significant size, potentially obscuring smaller lesions and hindering accurate assessment of breast tumors. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Considerable variations in artifact size and characteristics across different breast clips, MRI sequences, and field strengths exist. Awareness of these artifacts and their characteristics is essential to ensure accurate interpretation of scans and appropriate treatment planning. KEY POINTS: Awareness of breast clip artifacts is essential for accurate interpretation of MRI. The appearance of artifacts depends on breast clip type, field strength, and sequence. Clip-related artifacts might hinder the visibility of small lesions.
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.