The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of MR Imaging for Revealing Residual Breast Cancer in Patients Who Have Undergone Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our study investigated the usefulness of contrast-enhanced MR imaging for accurately measuring the size of residual tumor after patients have undergone neoadjuvant (pre-operative) chemotherapy. The imaging analysis method was optimized for identifying residual disease in the treated breast. Tumor sizes measured on the MR images and at the clinical examination were compared with the size of residual disease measured at pathology after surgery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Before undergoing surgery, 52 patients were imaged before and after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For each patient, specific malignancy criteria were applied to MR images before chemotherapy to identify the location of tumor, and residual disease was then identified as any remaining enhancement in the same area on the MR images after chemotherapy. Residual tumor size was measured using both the MR technique and the clinical examination findings, and the degree of measurement error for each method was assessed in comparison with the pathologic findings. RESULTS: The correlation with pathology was an r value of 0.89 for MR measurements compared with an r value of 0.60 for clinical measurements. In addition, MR imaging revealed all cases of residual disease, whereas clinical assessment resulted in five false-negative interpretations in the 52 treated lesions. CONCLUSION: The high correlation between measurements of residual disease obtained on MR images and those obtained at pathology validates the sensitivity of MR imaging of the breast after chemotherapy.
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
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
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
Marinovich, M. L., Houssami, N., Macaskill, P., Sardanelli, F., Irwig, L., Mamounas, E. P., von Minckwitz, G., Brennan, M. E., & Ciatto, S. (2013) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djs528 · Cited by 382
Solin, L. J., Orel, S. G., Hwang, W.-T., Harris, E. E., & Schnall, M. D. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.09.5448 · Cited by 346
Lobbes, M. B. I., Prevos, R., Smidt, M., Tjan-Heijnen, V. C. G., van Goethem, M., Schipper, R., Beets-Tan, R. G., & Wildberger, J. E. (2013) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1007/s13244-013-0219-y · Cited by 237
Gu, Y.-L., Pan, S.-M., Ren, J., Yang, Z.-X., & Jiang, G.-Q. (2017) · Clinical Breast Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2016.12.010 · Cited by 128
Metadata
- Authors
- Partridge, S. C., Gibbs, J. E., Lu, Y., Esserman, L. J., Sudilovsky, D., & Hylton, N. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1193-1199
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W2134269295
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Accuracy of MR Imaging for Revealing Residual Breast Cancer in Patients Who Have Undergone Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791193
- The paper
- Partridge, S. C., Gibbs, J. E., Lu, Y., Esserman, L. J., Sudilovsky, D., & Hylton, N. M. (2002). Accuracy of MR Imaging for Revealing Residual Breast Cancer in Patients Who Have Undergone Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791193
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.