Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21953376›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2012

MRI of colorectal cancer liver metastases: comparison of orally administered manganese with intravenously administered gadobenate dimeglumine.

Torkel B Brismar, Nikolaos Kartalis, Christian Kylander, Nils Albiin

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Torkel B BrismarDivision of Medical Imaging and Technology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. torkel.brismar@karolinska.se
Nikolaos Kartalis
Christian Kylander
Nils Albiin
Karolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the sensitivity of MRI to detect colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) after ingestion of manganese-based contrast agent (CMC-001) with that of a comprehensive intravenous gadobenate dimeglumine protocol, and to assess the safety and acceptability of oral manganese.

methods20 patients suspected of having 1-6 CRLM were included prospectively in this randomised cross-over study. Liver MRI was performed with a one-week interval at 1.5 T and included T1-w VIBE and T2-HASTE, before and after administration of 1.6 g CMC-001 or 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine. The metastasis-to-liver signal intensity (SI) ratio was calculated. Standard of reference was histopathology after surgery, or combination of other imaging studies and/or follow up. Adverse events (AE) and clinicolaboratory tests were monitored.

resultsOf 44 metastases, 41 were detected after CMC-001 (93%) and 42 after gadobenate dimeglumine (95%). Fifteen false-positive lesions were found after CMC-001 and 2 after gadobenate dimeglumine. The metastasis-to-liver SI ratio was significantly higher after CMC-001 than after gadobenate dimeglumine (0.51 and 0.21 respectively, P < 0.0001). More AE occurred after manganese compared to gadobenate dimeglumine.

conclusionsCMC-001 is as sensitive as an extensive intravenous gadobenate dimeglumine protocol in detecting CRLM. It was relatively well tolerated but had higher rates of gastrointestinal AE. KEY POINTS: • Liver MRI after ingestion of manganese is highly sensitive for detecting metastases • High false-positive rate necessitates further evaluation, in some cases • The MR examination time is short • Oral ingestion of manganese seems safe and relatively well tolerated by patients • Manganese compounds may be useful for liver metastasis surveillance after colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAgedColorectal NeoplasmsContrast MediaCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansInjections, IntravenousLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleManganeseMeglumineMiddle AgedOrganometallic CompoundsPhospholipidsCMC-001contrast agent BR1Contrast Mediagadobenic acidManganeseMeglumineOrganometallic CompoundsPhospholipidsSulfur Hexafluoride

Identifiers

PMID21953376
PMCPMC3269572
OpenAlexW2047480595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.