ReviewEuropean radiology2012
Standardising measurement of tumour vascularity by imaging: recommendations for ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography.
Review in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect on perfusion values of sampling interval of computed tomographic perfusion acquisitions in neuroendocrine liver metastases and normal liver.Journal of computer assisted tomographyTrial
- Contour-regulated registration framework for Liver CT perfusion images.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Inferring Stable Acquisition Durations for Applications of Perfusion Imaging in Oncology.Cancer informatics · 2015Article
- CT Perfusion Characteristics Identify Metastatic Sites in Liver.BioMed research international · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review analyses the need for, and likely impact of, four subsequent papers which discuss the importance of standardisation of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) when assessing tumour vascularity. This is particularly important when measuring the vascular effects of therapeutic agents in oncological research and practice. As imaging inexorably moves from the subjective interpretative art-form of the past into its modern role as a fully fledged objective scientific discipline, it is incumbent on all radiologists to understand the need for strict adherence to perceived best practice when evaluating lesions as part of trials. Indeed trials may only be funded by pharmaceutical companies and other grant-giving bodies if rigorous adherence to imaging protocols and quality assurance is in place. Key Points • Various imaging methods can now robustly assess tumour vascular support. • US, CT, MRI and PET are increasingly used to assess tumour vascularity. • These techniques have reached technical maturity for use in therapeutic oncological trials. • Consensus guidelines about using these techniques in assessing tumour vascularity are introduced. • Image acquisition protocols and quality assurance must be established for large trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22544291What 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.