ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2025
Prospective comparison of brain tumor detection and characterization using post-contrast Dixon uT1RESS and MPRAGE at 3 Tesla.
Article in European journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the image quality and lesion characterization with Dixon unbalanced T1 relaxation-enahnced steady-state (uT1RESS) in comparison to magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo (MPRAGE) pulse sequence for detecting brain tumors, focusing on its potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and enhance brain tumor assessment.
methodsThis single-center prospective study enrolled 20 patients (12 males, aged 35-83), with primary brain tumors and brain metastases. Both MPRAGE and Dixon uT1RESS were acquired at 3 T. Objective image quality was assessed by contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), tumor-to-brain contrast, and tumor volume. Subjective image quality was assessed by two independent readers focusing on lesion visibility, lesion margins, motion, and static artifacts. A side-by-side comparison assessed diagnostic performance regarding lesion detection, evaluation of internal structure and vascular or dural invasion.
resultsDixon uT1RESS had a reduced acquisition time (2 min 51 s vs. 4 min 52 s for MPRAGE) and showed significantly higher CNR and tumor-to-brain contrast compared to MPRAGE (p < 0.001). Subjectively, both sequences showed similar overall image quality. Dixon uT1RESS achieved more conspicuous lesions with better-defined lesion margins (p < 0.001), while MPRAGE performed better in evaluating internal lesion structure (p < 0.05). Dixon uT1RESS was rated better for lesion detection, with three lesions additionally identified on this sequence. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess differences.
conclusionsDixon uT1RESS significantly improved tumor conspicuity and detection, particularly for small metastatic lesions. This new technique offers promising potential for enhancing clinical brain tumor imaging, though additional sequences may be necessary for comprehensive lesion characterization.
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.