ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Improved image quality and T-staging accuracy using FOCUS-MUSE DWI in gastric cancer: a prospective comparison with SS-EPI.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the image quality and diagnostic value of field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding diffusion-weighted imaging (FOCUS-MUSE DWI) with single-shot echo-planar imaging (SS-EPI) DWI in gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with biopsy-proven gastric cancer who underwent FOCUS-MUSE and SS-EPI DWI were enrolled in this prospective study between February and October 2024. Qualitative image quality was evaluated by two radiologists using a standardized five-point scale. Quantitative comparisons of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were conducted for all measurable lesions. Preoperative T-staging accuracy was compared between the two techniques, with pathological or surgical findings as the reference. Agreement between estimations was evaluated using weighted kappa values and Bland-Altman plots. Pairwise differences between sequences were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests.
resultsAmong 177 patients (age 65.4 ± 9.8 years, mean ± standard deviation; 133 males), FOCUS-MUSE DWI outperformed SS-EPI DWI in lesion conspicuity and overall image quality (median scores, 5 versus 4; both p < 0.001). For 148 patients with measurable lesions, FOCUS-MUSE yielded higher SNR (33.6 and 34.6 versus 26.9 and 26.9) and CNR (7.1 and 7.7 versus 5.3 and 5.9; all p < 0.001). Among 128 patients with pathologically T1-4a (pT1-T4a), surgically T4b (sT4b), or pathologically T4b (pT4b), T-staging accuracy was higher with FOCUS-MUSE (64.8% and 63.3%) than SS-EPI (44.5% and 47.7%; both p < 0.001). Intra- and inter-reader agreement was good to excellent.
conclusionsFOCUS-MUSE DWI demonstrated higher image quality and T-staging accuracy than SS-EPI DWI in gastric cancer. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: FOCUS-MUSE DWI provides improved image quality compared with conventional SS-EPI DWI and enables more accurate preoperative T staging in gastric cancer. These findings support the potential role of advanced DWI techniques in improving local tumor assessment. KEY POINTS: FOCUS-MUSE DWI demonstrated higher image quality compared to SS-EPI DWI in gastric cancer. FOCUS-MUSE DWI significantly improved preoperative T-staging accuracy over SS-EPI DWI. This advanced DWI technique shows potential to enhance preoperative risk stratification and surgical planning.
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.