ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparison of image quality between simultaneous multi-slice single-shot EPI and readout-segmented EPI in diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Simultaneous multi-slice (SMS) has received a lot of attention, but there is a lack of comparative studies on the image quality and diagnostic efficacy of simultaneous multi-slice single-shot echo planar imaging (SMS+SS-EPI) versus readout-segmented echo planar imaging (RS-EPI) in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of prostate cancer. Objectives: Comparison of image quality and diagnostic efficacy of SMS+SS-EPI and RS-EPI in DWI of prostate cancer. Methods: A retrospective study included 100 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between January and August 2025 (48 cases with SMS+SS-EPI and 52 cases with RS-EPI). Two radiologists performed blinded 5-point subjective scoring and measured lesion signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), contrast (C), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Using transperineal 12+X needle biopsy pathology as the gold standard, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and ADC diagnostic performance was compared. Results: The RS-EPI group demonstrated superior performance in clarity (4.37 ± 0.69 vs. 3.98 ± 0.79), anatomical distortion (4.06 ± 0.80 vs. 3.69 ± 0.78), sharpness (4.04 ± 0.82 vs. 3.58 ± 0.74), detail display (4.21 ± 0.72 vs. 3.75 ± 0.70), and overall quality (4.33 ± 0.68 vs. 3.88 ± 0.70) were better than those of the SMS+SS-EPI group (P<0.001). The SNR (57.65 ± 7.84 vs. 50.45 ± 6.56, P < 0.001) and CNR (4.58 ± 0.75 vs. 4.16 ± 0.73, P = 0.005) were significantly higher than those in the RS-EPI group, while C (6.43 ± 1.06 vs. 6.32 ± 1.02, P = 0.578) and ADC (0.90 ± 0.23 vs. 0.87 ± 0.21, P = 0.448) values showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the area under curve (AUC) values for diagnosing prostate cancer based on ADC in the two groups were 0.925 and 0.933, respectively, indicating statistical equivalence in diagnostic performance (z=0.462, P = 0.644). However, the SMS+SS-EPI group demonstrated a significantly shorter acquisition time (1 min 50 s vs. 3 min 43 s). Conclusion: RS-EPI delivers superior subjective image quality, facilitating detailed anatomical assessment. SMS+SS-EPI provides higher SNR and CNR, significantly reducing scan time while maintaining comparable diagnostic performance based on ADC values. Sequence selection should be guided by clinical requirements.
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.