Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39838978›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025

External validation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based decision rules for characterizing breast lesions and comparison to Kaiser score and breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category.

Yongyu An, Guoqun Mao, Sisi Zheng, Yangyang Bu, Zhen Fang, Jiangnan Lin, Changyu Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Yongyu AnDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0382-4454
Guoqun MaoDepartment of Radiology, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Sisi ZhengDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.
Yangyang BuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.
Zhen FangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.
Jiangnan LinDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.
Changyu ZhouDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5125-1737

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) provides standard descriptors but not detailed decision rules for characterizing breast lesions. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) are also not incorporated in the BI-RADS. Several multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-based decision rules have been developed to differentiate breast lesions, but lack external validation. This study aims to externally validate several mpMRI-based decision rules for characterizing breast lesions and compare them with Kaiser score and BI-RADS category. Methods: There were 206 patients with 218 pathology-proven breast lesions (99 malignancies) included in this retrospective study from January 2018 to May 2018. Two radiologists blinded to pathology evaluated breast lesions according to the three mpMRI-based decision rules (Kim, Istomin, Zhong) and Kaiser score. BI-RADS category was extracted from radiology reports and also analysed. The diagnostic performances of the four decision rules and BI-RADS category were calculated and compared for different lesion types [mass and non-mass enhancement (NME)] and size (≤10 and >10 mm). The unnecessary biopsy rates for BI-RADS 4 lesions were calculated by the four decision rules. Results: The three mpMRI-based decision rules showed area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81-0.87 for all lesions, 0.86-0.92 for mass lesions, 0.68-0.82 for NME, and 0.68-0.87 for lesion size ≤10 mm, 0.82-0.87 for lesion size >10 mm. Kaiser score showed the highest diagnostic performance for all subgroups except for lesion size ≤10 mm. No significant differences were found in AUC between Kaiser score and BI-RADS category. The mpMRI-based decision rules showed high sensitivity of 100% in all subgroups at the expense of low specificity (range, 2.9-41.2%). In contrast, Kaiser score demonstrated a significantly higher specificity of 73.5-92.9% than the three mpMRI-based decision rules at the cost of a decreased sensitivity (range, 60.0-93.6%) in different subgroups. The unnecessary biopsy rates for BI-RADS 4 lesions were 9.8% (Istomin), 12.2% (Zhong), 14.6% (Kim) and 70.7% (Kaiser score), respectively. Conclusions: The mpMRI-based decision rules showed high sensitivity but low specificity for characterizing breast lesions, and their diagnostic efficiencies were inferior to Kaiser score and BI-RADS category.

Indexed as

Breast diseaseclinical decision support systemmultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)

Identifiers

PMID39838978
PMCPMC11744154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.