Cited by 213MRI in cancer diagnosisBreast Lesions and CarcinomasDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Relationship of temporal resolution to diagnostic performance for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast

Open access
El Khouli, Riham H., Macura, Katarzyna J., Barker, Peter B., Habba, Mohamed R., Jacobs, Michael A., Bluemke, David A.·2009·Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between temporal resolution of dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and classification of breast lesions as benign versus malignant. Materials and Methods: Patients underwent T 1‐weighted DCE MRI with 15 s/acquisition temporal resolution using 1.5 Tesla (n = 48) and 3.0T (n = 33) MRI scanners. Seventy‐nine patients had pathologically proven diagnosis and 2 had 2 years follow‐up showing no change in lesion size. The temporal resolution of DCE MRI was systematically reduced as a postprocessing step from 15 to 30, 45, and 60 s/acquisition by eliminating intermediate time points. Average wash‐in and wash‐out slopes, wash‐out percentage changes, and kinetic curve shape (persistently enhancing, plateau, or wash‐out) were compared for each temporal resolution. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to compare kinetic parameters and diagnostic accuracy. Results: Sixty patients (74%) had malignant lesions and 21 patients (26%) had benign lesions. All temporal‐resolution parameters significantly predicted benign versus malignant diagnosis (P < 0.05). However, 45 s/acquisition and higher temporal‐resolution datasets showed higher accuracy than the 60 s/acquisition dataset by ROC curve analysis (0.72 versus 0.69 for average wash‐in slope; 0.85 versus 0.82, for average wash‐out slope; and 0.88 versus 0.80 for kinetic curve shape assessment, for 45 s/acquisition versus 60 s/acquisition temporal‐resolution datasets, respectively (P = 0.027). Conclusion: DCE MRI data with at least 45‐s temporal resolution maximized the agreement between the kinetic parameters and correct classification of benign versus malignant diagnosis. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;30:999–1004. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmri.21947

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1148/radiol.2322030547 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/BF02678476 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s003300000745 · DOI
  4. 10.1055/s-2007-1000448 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.breast.2005.05.002 · DOI
  6. 10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101 · DOI
  7. 10.1001/jama.292.22.2735 · DOI
  8. 10.1148/radiology.193.3.7972823 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0730-725X(93)90002-U · DOI
  10. 10.1148/radiol.2363040811 · DOI
  11. 10.1097/01.rli.0000163741.16718.3e · DOI
  12. 10.1002/mrm.1910330416 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/02841850500539033 · DOI
  14. 10.1148/radiol.2291010898 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2 · DOI
  16. Cabin RJ, 2000, To Bonferroni or not to Bonferroni: when and how are the questions, ESA Bull, 81, 246
  17. 10.2214/ajr.175.1.1750035 · DOI
  18. 10.1148/radiol.2381042117 · DOI
  19. 10.1002/jmri.10380 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80683-9 · DOI
  21. 10.1148/radiology.219.2.r01ma44484 · DOI
  22. 10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051042 · DOI
  23. 10.2214/ajr.169.2.9242744 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/jmri.1880070113 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/MEMB.2004.1360410 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::AID-JMRI2>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
  27. 10.1002/jmri.10399 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
El Khouli, R. H., Macura, K. J., Barker, P. B., Habba, M. R., Jacobs, M. A., & Bluemke, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Suez Canal University (EG)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Bluemke, David A.
Venue
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-23
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
999-1004
ISSN
  • 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2586
OpenAlex
W1984236853
Cited by
213
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1ziaeb000065-01)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA125258, R01CA100184, P50CA103175)
  • NIH Clinical Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Keywords
dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, breast MRI, temporal resolution, breast lesion classification, benign versus malignant breast lesions, diagnostic accuracy, T1-weighted imaging
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Breast, Contrast Media, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Kinetics, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Area Under Curve

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review