ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Impact of background parenchymal enhancement on the diagnosis of enhancing lesions in breast MRI: a systematic approach.
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) enhances both suspicious lesions and normal tissue, known as background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). There is controversial evidence regarding whether BPE compromises the accuracy of breast MRI. Our aim was to investigate the influence of BPE in the detection of breast lesions by DCE-MRI using an ROI-based approach. MATERIALS AND
methodsMRI Images of consecutive patients with indeterminate or suspicious findings on mammography or ultrasound (BI-RADS 0, 3, 4, 5). tested between May 2020 and September 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Both breasts were divided into 10 regions of interest (ROIs), and BPE, BI-RADS and lesion type were assessed according to the MRI BI-RADS lexicon for each ROI by two blinded readers. BPE was dichotomized into minimum/mild (BPE1) and moderate/marked (BPE2). Patients without a standard reference were excluded. The standard reference was defined as histology or 1 year follow-up. The MRI performance was assessed using ROC analysis in an ROI-based analysis. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using k statistics.
resultsA total of 316 patients (mean of 54 years, SD 10.6; range 31-84) were included. Among the 282 lesions histopathologically analyzed, 129 were malignant and 153 were benign. BPE1 was observed in 78% of patients and BPE2 in 22%. AUC did not differ between BPE1 (0.989) and BPE2 (0.988), p > 0.05. Sensitivity was 98.1% for BPE1 and 100% for BPE2, with comparable specificity: 95.5% (BPE1) vs. 92.6% (BPE2), p > 0.05.
conclusionOur study demonstrated that BPE does not have a negative impact on the detection and identification of suspicious lesions on breast MRI. KEY POINTS: Question What is the role of background parenchymal enhancement on DCE-MRI in terms of potential masking or mimicking remains a challenging issue? Findings The diagnostic accuracy of DCE-MRI for detecting breast lesions is not affected by elevated BPE levels. Clinical relevance Systematic evaluation of DCE-MRI using ROI-based analysis improves breast cancer detection and ensures diagnostic accuracy across different levels of background parenchymal enhancement.
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.