ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Comparison of diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced MRI for monitoring response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Post-Treatment ADC and MRI Response Assessment for Predicting Pathological Complete Response in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Optimizing abbreviated breast MRI protocols for the early assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) compared to contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in predicting tumor response in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with breast cancer who were examined using 3.0-T MRI after NAT and underwent surgery between 2015 and 2018 were studied. Qualitative assessment of pathological complete response (pCR) and size of residual tumor following NAT were evaluated using CE-MRI and DW-MRI with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm
resultsA total of 1062 patients (49.3 years ± 9.0) were evaluated. Sensitivity for predicting pCR did not show a significant difference between CE-MRI and DW-MRI (65.3% and 62.9%, p = 0.50). The HR+/HER2- subtype showed significantly lower positive predictive value and higher negative predictive value than the others. Agreement of residual tumor size between CE-MRI and pathology (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.66) and between DW-MRI and pathology (ICC, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.61-0.68) did not differ significantly (p = 0.49). Residual tumor size was underestimated in the HR+/HER2- subtype and overestimated in the HR-/HER2+ subtype. The optimum ADC cut-off was 1.22 × 10
conclusionDW-MRI demonstrated comparable sensitivity for predicting pCR and agreement in residual invasive tumor size measurement to CE-MRI. ADC can be used as an additional tool for distinguishing residual tumors from post-treatment changes. KEY POINTS: Question The effectiveness of diffusion-weighted MRI in predicting tumor response to NAT in breast cancer remains uncertain. Findings Diffusion-weighted MRI demonstrated similar sensitivity to CE-MRI in predicting pCR and comparable accuracy in measuring residual tumor size. Clinical relevance Diffusion-weighted MRI could potentially be used as an alternative or complementary technique to CE-MRI for evaluating tumor response to NAT in patients with breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40555802What 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.