ArticleNeuroradiology2013
MRI assessment of experimental gliomas using 17.6 T.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUsing ultra-high-field contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an increase of field strength is associated with a decrease of T 1 relaxivity. Yet, the impact of this effect on signal characteristics and contrast-enhanced pathology remains unclear. Hence, we evaluated the potential of a 17.6-T MRI to assess contrast-enhancing parts of experimentally induced rat gliomas compared to 3 T.
methodsA total of eight tumor-bearing rats were used for MRI assessments either at 17.6 T (four rats) or at 3 T (four rats) at 11 days after stereotactic implantation of F98 glioma cells into the right frontal lobe. T 1-weighted sequences were used to investigate signal-to-noise-ratios, contrast-to-noise-ratios, and relative contrast enhancement up to 16 min after double-dose contrast application. In addition, tumor volumes were calculated and compared to histology.
resultsThe 17.6-T-derived contrast-enhancing volumes were 31.5 ± 15.4 mm(3) at 4 min, 38.8 ± 12.7 mm(3) at 8 min, 51.1 ± 12.6 mm(3) at 12 min, and 61.5 ± 10.8 mm(3) at 16 min after gadobutrol injection. Corresponding histology-derived volumes were clearly higher (138.8 ± 8.4 mm(3); P < 0.01). At 3 T, contrast-enhancing volumes were 85.2 ± 11.7 mm(3) at 4 min, 107.3 ± 11.0 mm(3) at 8 min, 117.0 ± 10.5 mm(3) at 12 min, and 129.1 ± 10.0 mm(3) at 16 min after contrast agent application. Averaged histology-derived volumes (139.1 ± 13.4 mm(3)) in this group were comparable to the 16-min volume (P ↔16 min = 0.38). Compared to ultra-high-field MRI, all 3-T-derived volumes were significantly higher (P < 0.02).
conclusionCompared to 3-T-derived images and histology, tumor volumes were underestimated by approximately 50 % at 17.6 T. Hence, contrast-enhanced 17.6-T MRI provided no further benefits in tumor measurement compared to 3 T.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.