ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Influence of virtual dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI on lesion size, BI-RADS scores and reader confidence.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast MRI routinely uses gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging. However, GBCA administration entails periprocedural effort and environmental impact, prompting exploration of contrast-agent-free approaches. Deep learning-based virtual DCE (vDCE) offers a potential solution. This study evaluated vDCE against multiparametric DCE protocols, focusing on BI-RADS, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and lesion size. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis IRB-approved retrospective study included 592 3 T examinations divided into training, validation, and test sets. A 2D U-Net generated vDCE series from unenhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted acquisitions. Two board-certified radiologists evaluated vDCE and DCE examinations using a BI-RADS-adapted reading protocol. Diagnostic and ordinal outcomes were compared using McNemar and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction.
resultsMean BI-RADS-based diagnostic accuracy was 76% for vDCE and 77% for DCE. Mean sensitivity was 92% vs 96%, and mean specificity was 65% vs 64%, respectively, without significant differences (both readers, p = 1.0). The mean paired lesion-size difference (DCE minus vDCE) was -2.2 mm in the holdout test set and 0.5 mm in the secondary test set. BPE (R1 p = 1.0; R2 p = 1.0) and artefact ratings (R1 p = 1.0; R2 p = 1.0) did not differ significantly. Reader confidence was high for both protocols, although lower for vDCE for one reader (p = 0.072).
conclusionvDCE showed four-percentage-point lower mean sensitivity and small, cohort-dependent lesion-size biases relative to GBCA-enhanced imaging. Further research is warranted to determine its potential role as a contrast-agent-free approach for selected breast imaging indications. KEY POINTS: Question Breast MRI relies on GBCAs, creating procedural and environmental burdens, while clinically validated contrast-agent-free approaches for BI-RADS-based assessment remain unavailable. Findings Virtual DCE MRI showed lower sensitivity than standard DCE, no significant difference in BPE, but more variable reader confidence and lesion size presentation. Clinical relevance Virtual DCE breast MRI currently demonstrates limited diagnostic performance and requires further optimisation, while additional clinical validation studies are needed to determine its potential as a non-contrast alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42891709What 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.