Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39759131›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Diffusion weighted imaging for improving the diagnostic performance of screening breast MRI: impact of apparent diffusion coefficient quantitation methods and cutoffs.

Debosmita Biswas, Daniel S Hippe, Andrea M Winter, Isabella Li, Habib Rahbar, Savannah C Partridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Debosmita BiswasDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Daniel S HippeClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Andrea M WinterDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Isabella LiDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Habib RahbarDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Savannah C PartridgeDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Funding

Elimination of Instrumental Bias for Quantitative Diffusion Imaging in Clinical Oncology TrialsR01CA190299 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MALYARENKO, DARIYA I. · 2015 to 2025
$6.4M
Validation and Standardization of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker in Breast CancerR01CA207290 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PARTRIDGE, SAVANNAH CORRINA · 2017 to 2022
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA190299NCI NIH HHS R01 CA207290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Diffusion weighted MRI (DWI) has emerged as a promising adjunct to reduce unnecessary biopsies prompted by breast MRI through use of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different lesion ADC measurement approaches and ADC cutoffs on the diagnostic performance of breast DWI in a high-risk MRI screening cohort to identify the optimal approach for clinical incorporation. Methods: Consecutive screening breast MRI examinations (August 2014-Dec 2018) that prompted a biopsy for a suspicious breast lesion (BI-RADS 4 or 5) were retrospectively evaluated. On DWI, ADC (b=0/100/600/800s/mm Results: 137 suspicious lesions (in 121 women, median age 44 years [range, 20-75yrs]) were detected on contrast-enhanced screening breast MRI and recommended for biopsy. Of those, 30(21.9%) were malignant and 107(78.1%) were benign. Hotspot ADC measures were significantly lower (p<0.001) than ADCs from both 2D and 3D ROI techniques. Applying the optimal data-derived ADC cutoffs resulted in comparable reduction in benign biopsies across ROI techniques (range:16.8% -17.8%). Applying the prespecified A6702 and EUSOBI cutoffs resulted in benign biopsy reduction rates of 11.2-19.6%(with 90.0-100% sensitivity) and 36.4-51.4%(with 70.0-83.3% sensitivity), respectively, across ROI techniques. ADC measures and benign biopsy reduction rates were similar when calculated with only 2 b-values (0,800 s/mm Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that with appropriate ADC thresholds, comparable reduction in benign biopsies can be achieved using lesion ADC measurements computed from a variety of approaches. Choice of ADC cutoff depends on ROI approach and preferred performance tradeoffs (biopsy reduction vs sensitivity).

Indexed as

ADC cutoffapparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)diagnostic performancediffusion weighted imaging (DWI)false positivesregion-of-interest (ROI)

Identifiers

PMID39759131
PMCPMC11695236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.