ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging parameters in type II TIC breast lesions.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (DCE-T1WI) of breast lesions, type III time-intensity curves (TICs) are associated with malignant lesions, and type I TICs are associated with benign lesions, but the association of type II curves with the status of breast lesions remains controversial. This study aimed to analyze the semi-quantitative parameters derived from DCE-T1WI in patients with type II TIC breast lesions and to develop a nomogram for the benign/malignant classification of lesions with type II TICs. Methods: Data of patients with type II TIC breast lesions were retrospectively collected. The following semi-quantitative parameters were collected: signal intensity of pre-contrast (SIpre), peak signal intensity (SIp), signal intensity of wash-in (SIwi), slope of peak (Sp), slope of wash-in (Swi), time to peak (Tp), time of wash-in (Twi), enhancement rate of peak (ERp), and enhancement rate of wash-in (ERwi). Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to select useful clinical and DCE-T1WI features. Selected features were used for nomogram model development. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were used for model performance evaluation. Results: Ninety-eight female patients with type II TIC breast lesions were included (53 with malignant lesions). After univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, only Tp showed an odds ratio of 0.95 (p = 0.014, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.97). A nomogram was constructed and included Swi, SIp, SIwi, SIpre, Tp, ERp, and Sp. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of the nomogram were 0.827, 0.761, 0.795, 0.796, and 0.796, respectively. The AUC was 0.862. Conclusion: DCE-T1WI semi-quantitative parameters were different among benign and malignant lesions in patients with type II TIC lesions. Tp showed the most significant difference after a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The results suggest that DCE-T1WI semi-quantitative parameters can be used to predict malignant lesions in patients with type II TIC.
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.