ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Comparative analysis of image quality and diagnostic performance among SS-EPI, MS-EPI, and rFOV DWI in bladder cancer.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. 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
- Comparison of image quality between simultaneous multi-slice single-shot EPI and readout-segmented EPI in diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Ultrafast MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging: a review of morphological evaluation and image quality in breast MRI.Japanese journal of radiology · 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
purposeTo compare image quality and diagnostic performance among SS-EPI diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), multi-shot (MS) EPI DWI, and reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 73 patients with bladder cancer who underwent multiparametric MRI in our referral center between August 2020 and February 2023. Qualitative image assessment was performed in 73; and quantitative assessment was performed in 66 patients with maximum lesion diameter > 10 mm. The diagnostic performance of the imaging finding of muscle invasion was evaluated in 47 patients with pathological confirmation of MIBC. T2-weighted imaging, SS-EPI DWI, MS-EPI DWI, rFOV DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging were acquired with 3 T-MRI. Qualitative image assessment was performed by three readers who rated anatomical distortion, clarity of bladder wall, and lesion conspicuity using a four-point scale. Quantitative assessment included calculation of SNR and CNR, and grading of the presence of muscle layer invasion according to the VI-RADS diagnostic criteria. Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test was used to compare qualitative and quantitative image quality. McNemar test and receiver-operating characteristic analysis were used to compare diagnostic performance.
resultsAnatomical distortion was less in MS-EPI DWI, rFOV DWI, and SS-EPI DWI, in that order with significant difference. Clarity of bladder wall was greater for MS-EPI DWI, SS-EPI DWI, and rFOV DWI, in that order. There were significant differences between any two combinations of the three DWI types, except between SS-EPI DWI and MS-EPI in Reader 1. Lesion conspicuity, diagnostic performance, SNR and CNR were not significantly different among the three DWI types.
conclusionsAmong the three DWI sequences evaluated, MS-EPI DWI showed the least anatomical distortion and superior bladder wall delineation but no improvement in diagnostic performance for MIBC. MS-EPI DWI may be considered for additional imaging if SS-EPI DWI is of poor quality.
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.