The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent.
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging relative to mammography and ultrasonography (US) for assessing the extent of breast tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histologic results and preoperative imaging findings (mammography, US, MR imaging) were analyzed regarding tumor size and multifocality of 61 tumors in 60 women undergoing mastectomy for carcinoma. RESULTS: In 10% of cases, the index tumor was not seen at mammography. With US, 15% of the index tumors were not recognized, while MR imaging missed 2% of the index tumors. On mammographic and US images, tumor size was underestimated significantly (P < .005), by 14% and 18%, respectively, while MR imaging showed no significant difference in size compared with that found in a pathologic evaluation. Mammography showed 31% of the additional invasive lesions, while US showed 38% and MR imaging showed 100%. CONCLUSION: MR imaging was the most accurate of the three preoperative imaging modalities in assessing the size and number of malignant lesions in the breast.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cited by
Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group
Sardanelli, F., Boetes, C., Borisch, B., Decker, T., Federico, M., Gilbert, F. J., Helbich, T., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Kaiser, W. A., Kerin, M. J., et al. (2010) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015 · Cited by 992
Self-citationBreast cancer diagnosis: Imaging techniques and biochemical markers
Jafari, S. H., Saadatpour, Z., Salmaninejad, A., Momeni, F., Mokhtari, M., Nahand, J. S., Rahmati, M., Mirzaei, H., & Kianmehr, M. (2018) · Journal of Cellular Physiology · doi:10.1002/jcp.26379 · Cited by 410
Katipamula, R., Degnim, A. C., Hoskin, T., Boughey, J. C., Loprinzi, C., Grant, C. S., Brandt, K. R., Pruthi, S., Chute, C. G., Olson, J. E., et al. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2008.19.4225 · Cited by 373
Burnside, E. S., Drukker, K., Li, H., Bonaccio, E., Zuley, M., Ganott, M., Net, J. M., Sutton, E. J., Brandt, K. R., Whitman, G. J., et al. (2016) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.29791 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Boetes, C., Mus, R. D., Holland, R., Barentsz, J. O., Strijk, S. P., Wobbes, T., Hendriks, J. H., & Ruys, S. H.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 197
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 743-747
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1974334892
- Cited by
- 519
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480749
- The paper
- Boetes, C., Mus, R. D., Holland, R., Barentsz, J. O., Strijk, S. P., Wobbes, T., Hendriks, J. H., & Ruys, S. H. (1995). Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480749
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
