ArticleMagnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine2026
Clinical Evaluation of Susceptibility-weighted MR Imaging for the Detection of Intramammary Micro- and Macrocalcifications in 70 Female Patients at 1.5T.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Calcification Detection versus Lesion Characterization in Breast SWI: Clinical Experiences with Standard Protocols.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe ability to accurately detect and characterize intramammary micro- and macrocalcifications without ionized radiation has significant clinical implications for early breast cancer assessment. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the feasibility of detecting intramammary calcifications using 3D multi-echo gradient echo (ME-GRE) magnitude and true susceptibility-weighted images (tSWI) compared to digital mammography (DM) in patients with different breast sizes and densities of breast parenchyma at 1.5T.
methodsTwo board-certified radiologists evaluated digital mammograms of 70 patients and compared them to the corresponding SW-based images concerning detection of intramammary calcifications and determination of their sizes. The clinical performance of both SW-based techniques in accurately detecting and assessing intramammary calcifications was determined. In addition an interobserver agreement was performed.
resultsCompared to DM, visualization of calcification lesions using both SW-based techniques is influenced by: 1) Morphology (shape and homogeneity) of calcifications; 2) Spatial arrangement of calcifications. Closely adjacent calcifications may not be distinguishable in the SW-based images as individual lesions. Overlapping susceptibility effects resulted in a single, larger lesion; 3) The (in-phase or out-of-phase cycle) echo time value selected in the imaging protocol plays a crucial role in visualizing the lesions; and 4) Lesion size was overestimated by up to 2.0 mm when comparing SW-based techniques to DM. An almost perfect interobserver agreement was found for the analysis. Microcalcifications could not be visualized. A sensitivity of 13.0% and specificity of 99.7% for the diagnosis of macrocalcifications could be provided with both SW-based techniques.
conclusionOur findings highlight the potentials and limitations of SW-based techniques at 1.5 T for characterizing intramammary micro- and macrocalcifications. The high specificity of SW-based techniques in combination with higher magnetic field strengths could revolutionize breast cancer screening and management.
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.