ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Diagnostic performance of kinetic parameters derived from ultrafast breast MRI in characterizing benign and malignant breast lesions: the added value of the semiautomatically based parameters.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two combined ultrafast breast MRI kinetic parameters, combination 1 including time to enhancement [TTE], maximum slope [MS], and initial enhancement phase [IE phase] compared to combination 2 including relative enhancement [RE], maximum enhancement [ME], maximum relative enhancement [MRE], time to peak [TTP], and wash in rate in characterizing benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study included 264 female patients with 273 breast lesions. The ultrafast protocol was done using the TWIST sequence. The parameters for combination 1 were generated manually; however, the parameters for combination 2 were generated semi-automatically. The overall performance of the ultrafast protocol was compared to the conventional dynamic MRI protocol.
resultsThe ultrafast protocol was obtained in 77 s. The mean interpretation time was 5 ± 2.7 and 1 ± 0.5 min for combinations 1 and 2, respectively. Combination 1 showed an AUC of 0.910, a sensitivity of 76.5% and a specificity of 90%, while combination 2 showed an AUC of 0.869, a sensitivity of 76.5%, and a specificity of 85% in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. Upon combining all parameters, the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity in discriminating between the two groups increased to 0.944, 80.4%, and 85%, respectively. Both ultrafast techniques and conventional MRI demonstrated excellent performance in discriminating between benign and malignant lesions (AUC = 0.921 vs 0.940, respectively).
conclusionAdding the semiautomatically generated parameters derived from ultrafast breast MRI can improve the performance in characterizing breast lesions. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By studying ultrafast-derived semiautomatic, easily applicable parameters, we aim to reduce the acquisition and interpretation times of breast MRI without compromising performance, when used as a problem-solving modality in indeterminate breast lesions to characterize them as either benign or malignant. KEY POINTS: Adding semiautomatic ultrafast parameters to the MS and TTE improves the overall performance in characterizing breast lesions. The combined ultrafast parameters provide the highest discriminating power between benign and malignant breast lesions. Ultrafast MRI showed comparable performance to conventional dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the discrimination between benign and malignant breast lesions.
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.