ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2014
Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: (18)F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- (18)F-FDG PET/MRI evaluation of retroperitoneal fibrosis: a simultaneous multiparametric approach for diagnosing active disease.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Trial
- [MP-MRI in the evaluation of non-operative treatment response, for residual and recurrent tumor detection in head and neck cancer].Magyar onkologia · 2025Review
- Assessing the intracranial metabolic score as a novel prognostic tool in primary CNS lymphoma with end of induction-chemotherapyCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Role ofCancers · 2024Review
- International EANM-SNMMI-ISMRM consensus recommendation for PET/MRI in oncology.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Brain imaging of sequential acquisition using a flexible PET scanner and 3-T MRI: quantitative and qualitative assessment.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- FocalThoracic cancer · 2023Article
- Editorial: Global excellence in nuclear medicine: North America.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Detection of distant metastases and distant second primary cancers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: comparison of [Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Detectability of 18F-choline PET/MR in primary hyperparathyroidism.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy ofContrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Observational
- Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI in patients with advanced oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of simultaneousEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020Article
- Are Gadolinium-Enhanced MR Sequences Needed in SimultaneousAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2020Article
- Integrated cardiovascular assessment of atherosclerosis using PET/MRI.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- PET/MRI of atherosclerosis.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2020Review
- Application of integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating the prognostic factors of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with positron emission tomography, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhancement and combined model.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2020Article
- PET/CT and PET/MRI in ophthalmic oncology (Review).International journal of oncology · 2020Review
- Comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020Article
- Preliminary clinical results for PET/MR compared with PET/CT in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Oncology reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur objectives were to assess the quality of PET images and coregistered anatomic images obtained with PET/MR, to evaluate the detection of focal uptake and SUV, and to compare these findings with those of PET/CT in patients with head and neck tumours.
methodsThe study group comprised 32 consecutive patients with malignant head and neck tumours who underwent whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/MR and PET/CT. PET images were reconstructed using the attenuation correction sequence for PET/MR and CT for PET/CT. Two experienced observers evaluated the anonymized data. They evaluated image and fusion quality, lesion conspicuity, anatomic location, number and size of categorized (benign versus assumed malignant) lesions with focal uptake. Region of interest (ROI) analysis was performed to determine SUVs of lesions and organs for both modalities. Statistical analysis considered data clustering due to multiple lesions per patient.
resultsPET/MR coregistration and image fusion was feasible in all patients. The analysis included 66 malignant lesions (tumours, metastatic lymph nodes and distant metastases), 136 benign lesions and 470 organ ROIs. There was no statistically significant difference between PET/MR and PET/CT regarding rating scores for image quality, fusion quality, lesion conspicuity or anatomic location, number of detected lesions and number of patients with and without malignant lesions. A high correlation was observed for SUVmean and SUVmax measured on PET/MR and PET/CT for malignant lesions, benign lesions and organs (ρ = 0.787 to 0.877, p < 0.001). SUVmean and SUVmax measured on PET/MR were significantly lower than on PET/CT for malignant tumours, metastatic neck nodes, benign lesions, bone marrow, and liver (p < 0.05). The main factor affecting the difference between SUVs in malignant lesions was tumour size (p < 0.01).
conclusionIn patients with head and neck tumours, PET/MR showed equivalent performance to PET/CT in terms of qualitative results. Comparison of SUVs revealed an excellent correlation for measurements on both modalities, but underestimation of SUVs measured on PET/MR as compared to PET/CT.
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.